MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: warriorchick on April 14, 2016, 08:03:53 AM
-
Yesterday Marquette posted answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the McAdams incident on its official news web page.
http://today.marquette.edu/2016/04/faq/?utm_source=fac-staff&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mu-today
Since I am pretty confident that MU's goal is to disseminate information and not count views, I am pulling a Heisy here and posting it in full. I am also highlighting facts that I believe have been misrepresented or underreported:
Frequently Asked Questions and Answers on personnel matter
APRIL 13, 2016
There has been a lot of misinformation on the internet and from groups outside our campus about a personnel situation involving Marquette and Associate Professor John McAdams. Marquette University has put together a Frequently Asked Questions page to share the facts and to make clear our position as a university. Dr. McAdams’ suspension with the university is continuing. Before returning to the faculty, he must provide an assurance that he will not continue behaviors that harm others within the Marquette community.
Where do leadership groups across campus stand on the issues?
President Michael Lovell’s perspective can be found here in his call for decency.
Marquette University’s Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees just issued a statement on behalf of the entire Board fully supporting President Lovell and the Faculty Hearing Committee recommendations.
The Executive Committee of the University Academic Senate also shared a statement supporting the positions of President Lovell and the Faculty Hearing Committee.
2015-16 Marquette University Student Government president Zack Wallace shared his perspective on this issue, in a post titled “Marquette value: Students first.”
The University Staff Senate also posted a statement that supports President Lovell and the Faculty Hearing Committee.
What happened here?
Dr. McAdams disagreed with the way one of our graduate students led a classroom discussion. Instead of expressing those concerns through established internal channels, he chose to blog about our graduate student — publicly shaming her, questioning her values and including a link to her contact information. He sought opportunities to amplify his public shaming of her on cable news and talk radio. Through those actions, he exposed her to a constant stream of threats and hateful messages. At one point, Marquette had to station a public safety officer outside her classroom. She chose to leave the university. The university reviewed Dr. McAdams’ conduct.
What was the university’s review process?
Following shared governance rules set by the university’s Academic Senate, a Faculty Hearing Committee made up of seven of Dr. McAdams’ peers conducted a hearing over four days last September. The committee consisted of tenured faculty members from several different academic disciplines. The committee issued a 123-page report to the president, concluding with a unanimous recommendation that Dr. McAdams acted irresponsibly, unprofessionally and without justification — and that he should be suspended.
It was Marquette’s preference throughout this process to keep all proceedings between the university and Dr. McAdams confidential because this is a personnel matter. However, Dr. McAdams has frequently used his blog to publish his version of proceedings — with the notable exception of his decision not to publish the full 123-page Faculty Hearing Committee Report, something he is free to do at any time. We feel this FAQ document is an important step to correct the misinformation he and some groups outside campus have perpetuated.
Has Dr. McAdams been fired?
No. He has been suspended without pay but with benefits through the fall semester of the 2016-17 academic year, in accordance with the Faculty Hearing Committee’s unanimous recommendation, and given a clear path that would facilitate his return to campus. Before returning to the faculty, he must provide an assurance that he will not continue behaviors that harm others within the Marquette community.
Is this issue about freedom of speech or academic freedom?
No, this issue is about the professor’s conduct toward a graduate student. Dr. McAdams has been blogging for more than a decade, publishing approximately 3,000 posts, and the university administration has never disciplined him. He has the right to talk about controversial topics on his blog, and to disagree with and debate Marquette-related positions freely. Where Dr. McAdams crossed the line is when he launched a personal attack against a student, subjecting her to threats and hateful messages. Dr. McAdams continues to use the student’s name on his blog, even recently identifying where she is currently studying, leading to more hostile and threatening messages.
Was this issue about Dr. McAdams’ political views?
No, this issue had nothing to do with politics. Our review and decisions are based on Dr. McAdams’ actions toward our graduate student, and not political or ideological views expressed in his blog.
Was Dr. McAdams asked to apologize?
President Lovell explained in his call for decency that Dr. McAdams was asked to take responsibility for his actions and to show remorse for the consequences of his irresponsible conduct. Dr. McAdams was never asked to make a public apology, and never was asked to apologize for any opinion or political view he may hold.
Is this an issue related to Marquette’s Catholic identity?
We have taken the position we have because of our Catholic identity and our values. This issue is about conduct and standing up for a student who was publicly shamed by a professor. U.S. Catholic magazine shared this perspective. Across campus, you can find Marquette’s Catholic identity flourishing.
Does Marquette foresee any changes related to other tenured professors?
No, Marquette has a longstanding tradition of awarding and supporting tenure to faculty who have earned tenure status. As President Lovell has shared previously, “Tenure is earned, but is also a responsibility with obligations. The power that tenure affords must never intimidate and silence or cause potential harm to those who are less powerful.”
Did Dr. McAdams criticize a fellow instructor, or a student?
The target of Dr. McAdams’ blog was a graduate student instructor. She remains a student first. The university has established channels in place for faculty members to express concerns. These standard channels of authority, which all university faculty members are expected to follow as a condition of employment as defined by the Faculty Handbook, include an associate dean, dean of the college or the provost.
Did the university review the graduate student teaching assistant’s handling of the classroom discussion?
The university immediately began a review of the overall incident, which included Dr. McAdams and the graduate student. The graduate student left the university soon after the process began, after she was subject to a stream of threats and hateful messages.
Is the Faculty Hearing Committee Report available to read?
When the Faculty Hearing Committee issued its report, members of the committee noted that they hope it becomes public in the future. Dr. McAdams is free to make it public at any time, as he has done with several other internal documents throughout this process.
What has factored into the length of this process?
This is a unique situation and it was important that university leaders followed shared governance policies and procedures throughout the process. This process included a review of the incident and four days of testimony from both sides. The Faculty Hearing Committee was diligent in drafting and issuing a 123-page report and unanimous recommendation for action, and time for the president to make his final decision.
- See more at: http://today.marquette.edu/2016/04/faq/?utm_source=fac-staff&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mu-today#sthash.NXCAtXGH.dpuf
-
Thanks for posting
-
Does Matty V know you copied and pasted information he didn't provide?
-
Does Matty V know you copied and pasted information he didn't provide?
That will be our little secret. ;)
-
I think one thing that might be lost in all this is the unequivocal support Dr. Lovell has received internally including public statements by the BOT, the independent Faculty Hearing Committee, the Academic Senate, the Staff Senate and the MUSG President. I'm especially apprectative of John Ferraro's written support.
It's an unfortunate situation that John McAdams has chosen to exploit rather than resolve. I truly wish outside journalists would take the time to accurately understand and report. Perhaps getting closer to that has been Marquette's objective over the last week.
-
Am a little surprise by the sound of virtual crickets here.
Where are Chicos and Rocket saying none of these facts matter?
-
Yesterday Marquette posted answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the McAdams incident on its official news web page.
http://today.marquette.edu/2016/04/faq/?utm_source=fac-staff&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mu-today
Since I am pretty confident that MU's goal is to disseminate information and not count views, I am pulling a Heisy here and posting it in full. I am also highlighting facts that I believe have been misrepresented or underreported:
Frequently Asked Questions and Answers on personnel matter
APRIL 13, 2016
There has been a lot of misinformation on the internet and from groups outside our campus about a personnel situation involving Marquette and Associate Professor John McAdams. Marquette University has put together a Frequently Asked Questions page to share the facts and to make clear our position as a university. Dr. McAdams’ suspension with the university is continuing. Before returning to the faculty, he must provide an assurance that he will not continue behaviors that harm others within the Marquette community.
Where do leadership groups across campus stand on the issues?
President Michael Lovell’s perspective can be found here in his call for decency.
Marquette University’s Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees just issued a statement on behalf of the entire Board fully supporting President Lovell and the Faculty Hearing Committee recommendations.
The Executive Committee of the University Academic Senate also shared a statement supporting the positions of President Lovell and the Faculty Hearing Committee.
2015-16 Marquette University Student Government president Zack Wallace shared his perspective on this issue, in a post titled “Marquette value: Students first.”
The University Staff Senate also posted a statement that supports President Lovell and the Faculty Hearing Committee.
What happened here?
Dr. McAdams disagreed with the way one of our graduate students led a classroom discussion. Instead of expressing those concerns through established internal channels, he chose to blog about our graduate student — publicly shaming her, questioning her values and including a link to her contact information. He sought opportunities to amplify his public shaming of her on cable news and talk radio. Through those actions, he exposed her to a constant stream of threats and hateful messages. At one point, Marquette had to station a public safety officer outside her classroom. She chose to leave the university. The university reviewed Dr. McAdams’ conduct.
What was the university’s review process?
Following shared governance rules set by the university’s Academic Senate, a Faculty Hearing Committee made up of seven of Dr. McAdams’ peers conducted a hearing over four days last September. The committee consisted of tenured faculty members from several different academic disciplines. The committee issued a 123-page report to the president, concluding with a unanimous recommendation that Dr. McAdams acted irresponsibly, unprofessionally and without justification — and that he should be suspended.
It was Marquette’s preference throughout this process to keep all proceedings between the university and Dr. McAdams confidential because this is a personnel matter. However, Dr. McAdams has frequently used his blog to publish his version of proceedings — with the notable exception of his decision not to publish the full 123-page Faculty Hearing Committee Report, something he is free to do at any time. We feel this FAQ document is an important step to correct the misinformation he and some groups outside campus have perpetuated.
Has Dr. McAdams been fired?
No. He has been suspended without pay but with benefits through the fall semester of the 2016-17 academic year, in accordance with the Faculty Hearing Committee’s unanimous recommendation, and given a clear path that would facilitate his return to campus. Before returning to the faculty, he must provide an assurance that he will not continue behaviors that harm others within the Marquette community.
Is this issue about freedom of speech or academic freedom?
No, this issue is about the professor’s conduct toward a graduate student. Dr. McAdams has been blogging for more than a decade, publishing approximately 3,000 posts, and the university administration has never disciplined him. He has the right to talk about controversial topics on his blog, and to disagree with and debate Marquette-related positions freely. Where Dr. McAdams crossed the line is when he launched a personal attack against a student, subjecting her to threats and hateful messages. Dr. McAdams continues to use the student’s name on his blog, even recently identifying where she is currently studying, leading to more hostile and threatening messages.
Was this issue about Dr. McAdams’ political views?
No, this issue had nothing to do with politics. Our review and decisions are based on Dr. McAdams’ actions toward our graduate student, and not political or ideological views expressed in his blog.
Was Dr. McAdams asked to apologize?
President Lovell explained in his call for decency that Dr. McAdams was asked to take responsibility for his actions and to show remorse for the consequences of his irresponsible conduct. Dr. McAdams was never asked to make a public apology, and never was asked to apologize for any opinion or political view he may hold.
Is this an issue related to Marquette’s Catholic identity?
We have taken the position we have because of our Catholic identity and our values. This issue is about conduct and standing up for a student who was publicly shamed by a professor. U.S. Catholic magazine shared this perspective.[/color] Across campus, you can find Marquette’s Catholic identity flourishing.
Does Marquette foresee any changes related to other tenured professors?
No, Marquette has a longstanding tradition of awarding and supporting tenure to faculty who have earned tenure status. As President Lovell has shared previously, “Tenure is earned, but is also a responsibility with obligations. The power that tenure affords must never intimidate and silence or cause potential harm to those who are less powerful.”
Did Dr. McAdams criticize a fellow instructor, or a student?
The target of Dr. McAdams’ blog was a graduate student instructor. She remains a student first. The university has established channels in place for faculty members to express concerns. These standard channels of authority, which all university faculty members are expected to follow as a condition of employment as defined by the Faculty Handbook, include an associate dean, dean of the college or the provost.
Did the university review the graduate student teaching assistant’s handling of the classroom discussion?
The university immediately began a review of the overall incident, which included Dr. McAdams and the graduate student. The graduate student left the university soon after the process began, after she was subject to a stream of threats and hateful messages.
Is the Faculty Hearing Committee Report available to read?
When the Faculty Hearing Committee issued its report, members of the committee noted that they hope it becomes public in the future. Dr. McAdams is free to make it public at any time, as he has done with several other internal documents throughout this process.
What has factored into the length of this process?
This is a unique situation and it was important that university leaders followed shared governance policies and procedures throughout the process. This process included a review of the incident and four days of testimony from both sides. The Faculty Hearing Committee was diligent in drafting and issuing a 123-page report and unanimous recommendation for action, and time for the president to make his final decision.
- See more at: http://today.marquette.edu/2016/04/faq/?utm_source=fac-staff&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mu-today#sthash.NXCAtXGH.dpuf
A liberal magazine like US Catholic endorsing the Administration's position should come as no surprise. The position of the administration to keep this all 'confidential' to me is just cover to silence Catholic teaching at a Catholic University. Glow pretty much admitted the student even with McAdam's support would not have gotten a fair hearing from the Philosophy department filled with "flaming lefties".
-
A liberal magazine like US Catholic endorsing the Administration's position should come as no surprise. The position of the administration to keep this all 'confidential' to me is just cover to silence Catholic teaching at a Catholic University. Glow pretty much admitted the student even with McAdam's support would not have gotten a fair hearing from the Philosophy department filled with "flaming lefties".
Two interesting things in my mind.
1. Confidentiality - I do not believe they can release the report...can you imagine if HR did that in your organization? I am not opining legally, but I would be appalled if the organization I worked for released the findings of a committee that could impact my ability to work in the future.
2. Catholic Teaching - I agree with what you say and what Glow said - but guess what we will never know that because of what happened. There is a case to be made in this country to ensure that people's right to academic and religious freedom is protected. Unfortunately you can't trample on the rights of others to prove it just because you don't believe that the 'process works'. The end does not justify the mean by which it is done.
-
Am a little surprise by the sound of virtual crickets here.
Where are Chicos and Rocket saying none of these facts matter?
You realize that many of the statements in these FAQs are simply University talking points, not "facts".
Quite surprised the University is willing to put something like this out with litigation looming, but there must be a substantial amount of questions being raised by alumni.
-
You realize that many of the statements in these FAQs are simply University talking points, not "facts".
Quite surprised the University is willing to put something like this out with litigation looming, but there must be a substantial amount of questions being raised by alumni.
Which of these talking points are not verifiable facts?
-
Here's Prof McAdams response to the FAQ...
Marquette’s Defensive, Evasive and Dishonest Attack on the Warrior Blogger
Marquette today came out with an FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) about our case. It’s an amazing collection of evasion, dissembling, and outright falsehood.
Let’s analyze it piece by piece (Marquette’s statement in sans serif typeface):
Dr. McAdams disagreed with the way one of our graduate students led a classroom discussion.
We “disagreed” with a teacher who told a student that he could not express opposition to gay marriage because doing so would be “homophobic,” and would “offend” any gay student in class. But Marquette implies this was merely some disagreement about pedagogical philosophy.
Instead of expressing those concerns through established internal channels, he chose to blog about our graduate student . . .
In the first place, the undergraduate student had attempted to “raise the concern” (note the euphemistic way mistreatment of a student is described) with the Arts & Sciences office, and then was referred to the Philosophy Department. There he was met with hostility, and received no redress at all.
Of course, bureaucrats would like all cases of misconduct to be quietly dealt with through “internal channels.” This is the way the Catholic Church handled the priestly sex abuse crisis.
Just how did that work out?
Keeping misconduct quiet removes the incentive for the bureaucrats to fix the problem. Further, the public has a right to know that at Marquette, a supposed “Catholic university,” this kind of abuse could happen.
— publicly shaming her,
What Lovell calls “public shaming” was simply journalism. Any reporting of misconduct could be called “public shaming.”
For example, members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity at the University of Oklahoma were shown on video voicing a racist chant on a bus. This was widely reported, and some of the fraternity members received death threats.
Was the media guilty of “public shaming?”
Had we, for example, written about a male professor who sexually harassed a female student, it’s inconceivable that we would be charged with “shaming” the professor.
questioning her values
Questioning the values of an instructor who said that certain opinions about marriage (and indeed the “opinions” of the Catholic Church) could not be expressed in a Marquette classroom? Absolutely!
Why does Marquette not question such “values?”
and including a link to her contact information.
Untrue. We included a link to her blog, which happened to contain her contact information (something we had not even noticed when we put up the post). The purpose of the link was obvious from the context. As we noted:
Aside from the audio, it’s easy to see how Abbate would have said what we reported. Her blog is titled “Thoughts from a Vegan Feminist Philosopher.” Some of the stuff seems quirky and bland, such as her criticism for a Catholic parish for having a pig wrestling contest.
Less benign is her essay titled “Yes All Men…Contribute to the Prevalence of Rape.” Yes, it’s a common theme among feminists and Exhibit One of the reality that hard-core feminism is, at root, about sexist antipathy toward males.
And Marquette continues:
He sought opportunities to amplify his public shaming of her on cable news and talk radio.
When we came under attack from Abbate and her allies, we defended ourself in the media. This was supposedly bad.
Through those actions, he exposed her to a constant stream of threats and hateful messages.
In fact, she received no threats, as she herself admitted.
She did receive some nasty e-mails. But nobody can report unfavorable information about anybody without the possibility of some jerks writing them and saying abusive things. This had never happened before in the ten-year history of our blog.
Again, should the media have declined to report the misconduct of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon members (see above)? A typical case in the media is when some high school teacher has sex with a student. The name of the teacher is always mentioned.
Has Dr. McAdams been fired?
No. He has been suspended without pay but with benefits through the fall semester of the 2016-17 academic year, in accordance with the Faculty Hearing Committee’s unanimous recommendation, and given a clear path that would facilitate his return to campus. Before returning to the faculty, he must provide an assurance that he will not continue behaviors that harm others within the Marquette community.
The “assurance” is a demand that the Faculty Hearing Committee did not make: that we apologize and take a loyalty oath. To be specific, Lovell demanded:
• Your acknowledgement and acceptance of the unanimous judgment of the peers who served on the Faculty Hearing Committee.
• Your affirmation and commitment that your future actions and behavior will adhere to the standards of higher education as defined in the Marquette University Faculty Handbook, Mission Statement and Guiding Values.
• Your acknowledgement that your November 9, 2014, blog post was reckless and incompatible with the mission and values of Marquette University and you express deep regret for the harm suffered by our former graduate student and instructor, Ms. Abbate.
As for “behaviors that harm others:” this apparently means any blogging that criticizes anybody at Marquette or reveals any misconduct at Marquette. In other words, the demand is that we renounce our right to academic freedom.
Is this issue about freedom of speech or academic freedom?
Where Dr. McAdams crossed the line is when he launched a personal attack against a student, subjecting her to threats and hateful messages.
Lovell is calling our reporting on misconduct by a graduate instructor a “personal attack.” By this standard, any reporting of misconduct of anybody at Marquette could be called a “personal attack.”
Was Dr. McAdams asked to apologize?
President Lovell explained in his call for decency that Dr. McAdams was asked to take responsibility for his actions and to show remorse for the consequences of his irresponsible conduct. Dr. McAdams was never asked to make a public apology, and never was asked to apologize for any opinion or political view he may hold.
Compare this with the direct quote (above) from Lovell’s letter to us. This level of spin and evasiveness is downright dishonest.
Is this an issue related to Marquette’s Catholic identity?
We have taken the position we have because of our Catholic identity and our values. This issue is about conduct and standing up for a student who was publicly shamed by a professor. U.S. Catholic magazine shared this perspective.
Interesting that they mention liberal U.S. Catholic, which is the only Catholic outlet that has sided with Marquette. Every other one that has dealt with the issue has taken Marquette to task (except for the liberal National Catholic Reporter, which ran a neutral article).
Also, secular outlets, including liberal ones like Slate, the Huffington Post and The Atlantic have criticized Marquette on this issue. So has the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. So has the conservative Wall Street Journal.
Across campus, you can find Marquette’s Catholic identity flourishing.
Right, it is flourishing when students are demeaned and shut up for wanting to argue for the Catholic view of marriage. Or when a mural in the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center honors one of the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Terrorists.”
Or when Marquette sponsors a “Femsex” seminar in which participants are expected to produce a piece of erotica (read “pornography”) and have a “nonjudgmental” discussion of abortion, pornography and prostitution, and color pictures of female genitalia in the “aunt Coloring Book.”
Or when instructors are fearful about discussing the Catholic view of marriage because they may be charged with “sexual harassment.”
Or when Marquette “likes” a tweet that demands that opposition to gay marriage be shut up on campus, as “hate speech.”
If this is flourishing, what would languishing look like?
Did Dr. McAdams criticize a fellow instructor, or a student?
The target of Dr. McAdams’ blog was a graduate student instructor. She remains a student first.
And how is she a “student first?” Because that’s convenient for Marquette. The instructor, Cheryl Abbate, was the “Instructor of Record” in the course: she made out the syllabus, she handled the lectures and class discussion, she graded the papers and assigned the grades.
Click to Enlarge
Abbate, at the time of the incident, was 29 years old and in the U.S. military. She had taught the class multiple times previously.
The real “student” was the undergraduate who was bullied because of his views on gay marriage.
The university has established channels in place for faculty members to express concerns. These standard channels of authority, which all university faculty members are expected to follow as a condition of employment as defined by the Faculty Handbook, include an associate dean, dean of the college or the provost.
The Faculty Handbook outlines “channels of authority” which can handle complaints, but there is no rule whatsoever banning the public airing of abuses at Marquette. Any such rule would be at odds with faculty contractual guarantees of academic freedom.
Again, all bureaucrats would prefer that cases of misconduct be kept quiet and internal. But journalists (and that includes faculty bloggers) have no obligation to accommodate them on this.
In fact, where the bureaucrats have failed to address the problem (as they did in this case) or where there is a systemic problem (as politically correct intolerance is at Marquette) there is actually a moral imperative to “go public.”
Labels: Academic Freedom, Catholic Mission, Faculty Hearing Committee, John McAdams, Leftist Intolerance, Liberal Intolerance, Marquette University, Michael Lovell, Political Correctness
POSTED BY JOHN MCADAMS AT 9:54 PM 0 COMMENTS LINKS TO THIS POST
-
What a f#cking disaster this continues to be.
As for the Marquette action: I smell fear.
It's the Ted Mack Amateur Hour
-
The part that I found interesting was John's complaint that the matter got referred back to Philosophy by the Dean. Well of course that was the first step dude. Like I've said, proper channels.
Here's what I believe but don't know for sure and absolutely won't ask. Trust me, having spent lots of time in deps during my career I know when not to ask questions. At the time of McAdams initial blog, I'm pretty sure the Provost hadn't even heard of the matter. Like I said, channels.
-
Which of these talking points are not verifiable facts?
Do you really believe that this entire episode has not been a complete train wreck for our alma mater?
Marquette's FAQ is pure, unadulterated spin. Anyone with half a brain can distinguish between opinion and empiricism.
Mike Lovell continues to underwhelm. I had been on the fence about the guy but the more I see the less I think he is the discerning sophisticated executive we should have to lead our college.
It would seem that his most compelling personal attribute for Marquette is that he attends Mass every day. Frankly, since Marquette is straying from its Catholic values I would argue that belonging to the Roman Church is becoming less of a criterion for heading up this once proud Jesuit institution.
I would rather have a Jewish Mark Schlissel or an Anglican Drew Gilpin Faust provide the inspired leadership for Marquette that Catholic Mike Lovell apparently cannot.
-
Ok, now I'm finally on the MU just needs to shut up train. You aren't going to win with McAdams and his megaphone (conservative/Fox News types) is much larger.
McAdams is a fool, but engaging him further simply puts MU behind the power curve and he's gonna win a low level, knife fight
-
Which of these talking points are not verifiable facts?
The following are not verifiable facts, but rather talking points:
"Is this issue about freedom of speech or academic freedom? No, this issue is about the professor’s conduct toward a graduate student."
"Was this issue about Dr. McAdams’ political views? No, this issue had nothing to do with politics. Our review and decisions are based on Dr. McAdams’ actions toward our graduate student, and not political or ideological views expressed in his blog."
"Dr. McAdams was never asked to make a public apology, and never was asked to apologize for any opinion or political view he may hold."
"Is this an issue related to Marquette’s Catholic identity? We have taken the position we have because of our Catholic identity and our values. This issue is about conduct and standing up for a student who was publicly shamed by a professor."
"Did Dr. McAdams criticize a fellow instructor, or a student? The target of Dr. McAdams’ blog was a graduate student instructor. She remains a student first."
I really don't understand why Lovell doesn't just stand up as the bigger man, admit that his administration overreacted, and put the whole thing to bed.
-
Am a little surprise by the sound of virtual crickets here.
Where are Chicos and Rocket saying none of these facts matter?
taa-daaa, i'm baaaack none of these facts matter-heyheyhey heyn'a?
just kidding, sorta. i need to catch up a little here...don't go anywhere now, hear?
-
amateur hour at the old Alma Mater
-
ok, here it goes-my thoughts-marquette is trying to do what it thinks it has to do. fine. everyone in MU's adm. is in adamant support of dr. lovell and their response-really? give me second to get up off the floor. if they would have asked me, i could have made up some FAQ's and then proceeded to "answer" them if they didn't mind lower case and poor ingles, 'ey nice! i'll ask the questions AND i'll give the answers? what the...? ya know, this could be all fine and good, but i don't know where they are getting their advice from. experts? if these experts went to MU, and this is the advice they are getting, i'd want a second opinion.
BUT, MU is completely missing the elephant in the room here. all of us here pretty much know and/or have heard both sides. everyone else out there doesn't have time and/or will not take the time to hear all that. and besides, for the most part, it's too late. people want the cliff's notes version, then off to pick up junior from soccer practice. pardon the expression, but MU is not going to get the toothpaste back into the tube. people, in stories as these, have seen this dog hunt far too many times-liberal schools beating down conservative points of view-the end. so they hear about this situation via whatever media and they roll their eyes and go, here we go again. let's see, warrior, militant mural, acceptance of flaming unqualified liberal for arts and sciences then rescinding it, safe places, tolerance, tolerance, tolerance
doc mccadams has a well followed blog. he has some fans. they talk. next thing ya know, the rush limbaugh's and mark belling's are talking about this on NATIONAL radio-more than once. other media(wsj, et.al.) picks up on it. whether i'm for doc mccadams, neutral or for my alma mater, it doesn't matter. MU is handling this badly and they keep stepping in it. it doesn't matter if abbate was a teacher, a student, a jesuit, head of the dept...it doesn't matter if doc mccadam's really doesn't go to church every sunday...people have already heard what they want to hear. MU is becoming the berkeley of the midwest, but they have their supporters...whatever...
what should they do? obviously i'm not a PR dude, but MU seems really dug in, and in their mind(s) they think they are being reasonable. they need to come out, put the big boy pants on and tell everyone they are going to start over and become a leader of higher education throughout the nation and show that they are truly tolerant of both sides. it's time for some action-show us. right now, MU is catholic/jesuit in name only-they aren't fooling anyone. enough with the-well we aren't really THAT liberal. drop the mccadams case and start anew. do something different, bold and make the others take notice
ya know why they won't do this? they don't believe in it. it's not in their DNA. they are playing not to lose and they are trying to run out the clock. at what price(not always monetarily) remains to be seen
-
Am a little surprise by the sound of virtual crickets here.
Where are Chicos and Rocket saying none of these facts matter?
Sorry Chick, didn't get around to reading this until tonight. Problem as I see it, a whole lot of what is listed here may or may not be facts. How much is verfiable, how much left out, etc? As an example, they talk about the Catholicism angle, which is fine, but that is hardly the only viewpoint on this from Catholics, including some Catholic publications.
Found it interesting in one area MU says "graduate student", but later states "graduate student instructor". Be consistent MU!!
I'm glad they put this out (FINALLY), again makes me wonder why they are so damn slow on the PR front. This could have been done months ago, but now it comes out? Even if I don't buy into some of it, some of it is good stuff, but MU and the PR game has been terrible for years.
-
I hate to say this but we might very well have crossed the Zizzo Line.
Time to uncork the bottle of Zizzo Voom...
(https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mf34bf035726141856ff707af3081d49ao0&pid=15.1)
-
Ok, now I'm finally on the MU just needs to shut up train. You aren't going to win with McAdams and his megaphone (conservative/Fox News types) is much larger.
McAdams is a fool, but engaging him further simply puts MU behind the power curve and he's gonna win a low level, knife fight
This whole thing has been terribly mismanaged.
The key take away has nothing to do with John McAdams; the real problem centers on Mike Lovell's judgment as a leader.
-
This whole thing has been terribly mismanaged.
The key take away has nothing to do with John McAdams; the real problem centers on Mike Lovell's judgment as a leader.
I am unwilling to hold this one issue, that started prior to Lovell being in charge, as an indictment on Lovell's capability generally. Overall, I've been very pleased with Lovell's stewardship of the university.
-
No doubt Mike does have a few blind spots that I won't articulate here. But decisiveness and leadership aren't among them. One can disagree with his decisions in this and other matters but one must acknowledge his willingness to make them.
-
I'm in the "I don't really care at all." camp.
Marquette put the FAQ's out there, which makes the investigation transparent.
With the FAQ's out, whoever said time to be quiet is correct.
Obviously, McAdams has the personality of someone who'll eventually do himself in, but only if MU stays quiet on the subject going forward.
Who cares who he chirps to, he wasn't fired so he doesn't have much to complain about.
-
I'm in the "I don't really care at all." camp.
Marquette put the FAQ's out there, which makes the investigation transparent.
With the FAQ's out, whoever said time to be quiet is correct.
Obviously, McAdams has the personality of someone who'll eventually do himself in, but only if MU stays quiet on the subject going forward.
Who cares who he chirps to, he wasn't fired so he doesn't have much to complain about.
This is the really dumb part about Lovell's forced apology demand: had he simply suspended McAdams without pay for a semester, McAdams really wouldn't have much to stand on. Instead, Lovell has essentially forced himself to make another decision on whether to fire McAdams, dragging out this whole mess further--whatever value there may have been in requiring McAdams to "take responsibility", Lovell should have seen that McAdams would never do it and it would not be worth continuing what has been a black eye for the university.
-
A liberal magazine like US Catholic endorsing the Administration's position should come as no surprise. The position of the administration to keep this all 'confidential' to me is just cover to silence Catholic teaching at a Catholic University. Glow pretty much admitted the student even with McAdam's support would not have gotten a fair hearing from the Philosophy department filled with "flaming lefties".
That whole post and this is the one thing you argue with, that US Catholic is a "liberal" magazine? Clearly there is not much else to argue with Lovell's explanation here.
Thanks for posting Chick. Good stuff here.
-
Here's Prof McAdams response to the FAQ...
Marquette’s Defensive, Evasive and Dishonest Attack on the Warrior Blogger
Marquette today came out with an FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) about our case. It’s an amazing collection of evasion, dissembling, and outright falsehood.
Let’s analyze it piece by piece (Marquette’s statement in sans serif typeface):
Dr. McAdams disagreed with the way one of our graduate students led a classroom discussion.
We “disagreed” with a teacher who told a student that he could not express opposition to gay marriage because doing so would be “homophobic,” and would “offend” any gay student in class. But Marquette implies this was merely some disagreement about pedagogical philosophy.
Instead of expressing those concerns through established internal channels, he chose to blog about our graduate student . . .
In the first place, the undergraduate student had attempted to “raise the concern” (note the euphemistic way mistreatment of a student is described) with the Arts & Sciences office, and then was referred to the Philosophy Department. There he was met with hostility, and received no redress at all.
Of course, bureaucrats would like all cases of misconduct to be quietly dealt with through “internal channels.” This is the way the Catholic Church handled the priestly sex abuse crisis.
Just how did that work out?
Keeping misconduct quiet removes the incentive for the bureaucrats to fix the problem. Further, the public has a right to know that at Marquette, a supposed “Catholic university,” this kind of abuse could happen.
— publicly shaming her,
What Lovell calls “public shaming” was simply journalism. Any reporting of misconduct could be called “public shaming.”
For example, members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity at the University of Oklahoma were shown on video voicing a racist chant on a bus. This was widely reported, and some of the fraternity members received death threats.
Was the media guilty of “public shaming?”
Had we, for example, written about a male professor who sexually harassed a female student, it’s inconceivable that we would be charged with “shaming” the professor.
questioning her values
Questioning the values of an instructor who said that certain opinions about marriage (and indeed the “opinions” of the Catholic Church) could not be expressed in a Marquette classroom? Absolutely!
Why does Marquette not question such “values?”
and including a link to her contact information.
Untrue. We included a link to her blog, which happened to contain her contact information (something we had not even noticed when we put up the post). The purpose of the link was obvious from the context. As we noted:
Aside from the audio, it’s easy to see how Abbate would have said what we reported. Her blog is titled “Thoughts from a Vegan Feminist Philosopher.” Some of the stuff seems quirky and bland, such as her criticism for a Catholic parish for having a pig wrestling contest.
Less benign is her essay titled “Yes All Men…Contribute to the Prevalence of Rape.” Yes, it’s a common theme among feminists and Exhibit One of the reality that hard-core feminism is, at root, about sexist antipathy toward males.
And Marquette continues:
He sought opportunities to amplify his public shaming of her on cable news and talk radio.
When we came under attack from Abbate and her allies, we defended ourself in the media. This was supposedly bad.
Through those actions, he exposed her to a constant stream of threats and hateful messages.
In fact, she received no threats, as she herself admitted.
She did receive some nasty e-mails. But nobody can report unfavorable information about anybody without the possibility of some jerks writing them and saying abusive things. This had never happened before in the ten-year history of our blog.
Again, should the media have declined to report the misconduct of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon members (see above)? A typical case in the media is when some high school teacher has sex with a student. The name of the teacher is always mentioned.
Has Dr. McAdams been fired?
No. He has been suspended without pay but with benefits through the fall semester of the 2016-17 academic year, in accordance with the Faculty Hearing Committee’s unanimous recommendation, and given a clear path that would facilitate his return to campus. Before returning to the faculty, he must provide an assurance that he will not continue behaviors that harm others within the Marquette community.
The “assurance” is a demand that the Faculty Hearing Committee did not make: that we apologize and take a loyalty oath. To be specific, Lovell demanded:
• Your acknowledgement and acceptance of the unanimous judgment of the peers who served on the Faculty Hearing Committee.
• Your affirmation and commitment that your future actions and behavior will adhere to the standards of higher education as defined in the Marquette University Faculty Handbook, Mission Statement and Guiding Values.
• Your acknowledgement that your November 9, 2014, blog post was reckless and incompatible with the mission and values of Marquette University and you express deep regret for the harm suffered by our former graduate student and instructor, Ms. Abbate.
As for “behaviors that harm others:” this apparently means any blogging that criticizes anybody at Marquette or reveals any misconduct at Marquette. In other words, the demand is that we renounce our right to academic freedom.
Is this issue about freedom of speech or academic freedom?
Where Dr. McAdams crossed the line is when he launched a personal attack against a student, subjecting her to threats and hateful messages.
Lovell is calling our reporting on misconduct by a graduate instructor a “personal attack.” By this standard, any reporting of misconduct of anybody at Marquette could be called a “personal attack.”
Was Dr. McAdams asked to apologize?
President Lovell explained in his call for decency that Dr. McAdams was asked to take responsibility for his actions and to show remorse for the consequences of his irresponsible conduct. Dr. McAdams was never asked to make a public apology, and never was asked to apologize for any opinion or political view he may hold.
Compare this with the direct quote (above) from Lovell’s letter to us. This level of spin and evasiveness is downright dishonest.
Is this an issue related to Marquette’s Catholic identity?
We have taken the position we have because of our Catholic identity and our values. This issue is about conduct and standing up for a student who was publicly shamed by a professor. U.S. Catholic magazine shared this perspective.
Interesting that they mention liberal U.S. Catholic, which is the only Catholic outlet that has sided with Marquette. Every other one that has dealt with the issue has taken Marquette to task (except for the liberal National Catholic Reporter, which ran a neutral article).
Also, secular outlets, including liberal ones like Slate, the Huffington Post and The Atlantic have criticized Marquette on this issue. So has the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. So has the conservative Wall Street Journal.
Across campus, you can find Marquette’s Catholic identity flourishing.
Right, it is flourishing when students are demeaned and shut up for wanting to argue for the Catholic view of marriage. Or when a mural in the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center honors one of the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Terrorists.”
Or when Marquette sponsors a “Femsex” seminar in which participants are expected to produce a piece of erotica (read “pornography”) and have a “nonjudgmental” discussion of abortion, pornography and prostitution, and color pictures of female genitalia in the “aunt Coloring Book.”
Or when instructors are fearful about discussing the Catholic view of marriage because they may be charged with “sexual harassment.”
Or when Marquette “likes” a tweet that demands that opposition to gay marriage be shut up on campus, as “hate speech.”
If this is flourishing, what would languishing look like?
Did Dr. McAdams criticize a fellow instructor, or a student?
The target of Dr. McAdams’ blog was a graduate student instructor. She remains a student first.
And how is she a “student first?” Because that’s convenient for Marquette. The instructor, Cheryl Abbate, was the “Instructor of Record” in the course: she made out the syllabus, she handled the lectures and class discussion, she graded the papers and assigned the grades.
Click to Enlarge
Abbate, at the time of the incident, was 29 years old and in the U.S. military. She had taught the class multiple times previously.
The real “student” was the undergraduate who was bullied because of his views on gay marriage.
The university has established channels in place for faculty members to express concerns. These standard channels of authority, which all university faculty members are expected to follow as a condition of employment as defined by the Faculty Handbook, include an associate dean, dean of the college or the provost.
The Faculty Handbook outlines “channels of authority” which can handle complaints, but there is no rule whatsoever banning the public airing of abuses at Marquette. Any such rule would be at odds with faculty contractual guarantees of academic freedom.
Again, all bureaucrats would prefer that cases of misconduct be kept quiet and internal. But journalists (and that includes faculty bloggers) have no obligation to accommodate them on this.
In fact, where the bureaucrats have failed to address the problem (as they did in this case) or where there is a systemic problem (as politically correct intolerance is at Marquette) there is actually a moral imperative to “go public.”
Labels: Academic Freedom, Catholic Mission, Faculty Hearing Committee, John McAdams, Leftist Intolerance, Liberal Intolerance, Marquette University, Michael Lovell, Political Correctness
POSTED BY JOHN MCADAMS AT 9:54 PM 0 COMMENTS LINKS TO THIS POST
I am so f*cking sick of McAdams' use of the royal "We." He acts like he is the goddamn Pope.
-
For those in the "MU is badly mishandling this" camp, a bit of a thought exercise. Let's take this incident in isolation, let's pretty MU hasn't screwed up this type of stuff in the past or any inherent issues you may have with the direction of the university, etc. On a scale of 1-10 how bad do you think this is?
I get the general sense that this issue in isolation isn't that egregious but is a case where people step back and say MU is f'ing this up again. In other words, this is really about the compounding effect and perhaps the dashing of hope that Lovell "would be different".
The reason I ask, is because a lot of this is legacy issue, prior to Lovell, and also a lot of competing stakeholders to manage. I'm hopeful that this is a clearing of the deck that should new issues arise will be dealt with successfully.
-
For those in the "MU is badly mishandling this" camp, a bit of a thought exercise. Let's take this incident in isolation, let's pretty MU hasn't screwed up this type of stuff in the past or any inherent issues you may have with the direction of the university, etc. On a scale of 1-10 how bad do you think this is?
I get the general sense that this issue in isolation isn't that egregious but is a case where people step back and say MU is f'ing this up again. In other words, this is really about the compounding effect and perhaps the dashing of hope that Lovell "would be different".
The reason I ask, is because a lot of this is legacy issue, prior to Lovell, and also a lot of competing stakeholders to manage. I'm hopeful that this is a clearing of the deck that should new issues arise will be dealt with successfully.
That's an interesting observation. This stuff is never viewed in isolation. There have been PR disasters in the past, IMO most much worse than this (the Gold). Is this just a proverbial straw on the camel's back?
-
I'm in the "I don't really care at all." camp.
Marquette put the FAQ's out there, which makes the investigation transparent.
With the FAQ's out, whoever said time to be quiet is correct.
Obviously, McAdams has the personality of someone who'll eventually do himself in, but only if MU stays quiet on the subject going forward.
Who cares who he chirps to, he wasn't fired so he doesn't have much to complain about.
I thought if he doesn't "apologize" he will be fired.
-
That whole post and this is the one thing you argue with, that US Catholic is a "liberal" magazine? Clearly there is not much else to argue with Lovell's explanation here.
Thanks for posting Chick. Good stuff here.
Well the Administration used that publication to endorse their position regarding McAdams and foster their canard that Marquette's Catholic Identity is flourishing on campus. The student we don't hear about has certainly not experienced Catholic Identity flourishing on campus. Why doesn't Marquette just be honest and stop promoting the University as a Catholic Institution when it is clearly not; especially when it goes out of it's way to promote the LGBT community agenda.
-
No doubt Mike does have a few blind spots that I won't articulate here. But decisiveness and leadership aren't among them. One can disagree with his decisions in this and other matters but one must acknowledge his willingness to make them.
glow
The problem is not Lovell's willingness to make a decision. The issue is to make the right decision consistently.
We are not talking about the mid-level Purchasing Manager here. The man is the Chief Executive of an enterprise with an international constituency. I expect him to perform accordingly.
And as we both seem to know Lovell needs to become less stubborn, obstinate, and close-minded on many things in order to mature into the seasoned decision-maker we need to lead Marquette. My only regret is that we have to suffer through his education process.
Your comment reminded me of the Pepsi Hypodermic Needle Case. I was with PepsiCo Foods International in Hong Kong when a series of hypos were being reported found in cans of Pepsi. The first report was concerning. But when reports of needles in cans started cropping up all over the US Pepsi knew it was a hoax that was pointing towards lawsuits.
Wayne Callaway made numerous decisions that were firm, determined, and correct:
1. Contacted the FBI because he knew this was a criminal matter
2. Refused to pull product becuase no one had been injured or harmed
3. Launched an expensive media campaign that showed how cans are rinsed multiple times, filled, then capped in a matter of seconds to demonstrate the physical impossibility of needles in cans
4. Worked with retailers to scan through in-store video
Despite a national outcry for Pepsi to order a massive recall Callaway refused to give in. And when investigators started unearthing video of idiots opening cans of Pepsi in the stores and actually dropping needles into the cans Pepsi had the evidence it needed to prove this was a scam.
Perhaps the most important decision Callaway made was to seek criminal charges against the people who had tried to extort money out of Pepsi.
Most CEOs would not have held firm as did Callaway. Despite overwhelming negative public reaction he refused to order a recall and invested millions in an education campaign while working with the FBI to disprove the claims. Initially, PepsiCo stock 3% of its value in the first days of the 'scandal' but ultimately more than doubled by the end of that year.
Making decisions is easy. Making the right decision consistently is what separates the leaders from the pretenders.
-
This is the really dumb part about Lovell's forced apology demand: had he simply suspended McAdams without pay for a semester, McAdams really wouldn't have much to stand on. Instead, Lovell has essentially forced himself to make another decision on whether to fire McAdams, dragging out this whole mess further--whatever value there may have been in requiring McAdams to "take responsibility", Lovell should have seen that McAdams would never do it and it would not be worth continuing what has been a black eye for the university.
I was told by a very good source that there was a decent chance that McAdams would have taken the semester suspension (not happily but might have accepted it). However, the demand for an apology has caused the situation to escalate again and it is 100% headed to court now. Lovell blew this big time, and as I've said before, MU is heading towards a massive beatdown from the WI Supreme Court. Why Lovell inserted himself into this so personally with the apology demand is baffling.
-
For those in the "MU is badly mishandling this" camp, a bit of a thought exercise. Let's take this incident in isolation, let's pretty MU hasn't screwed up this type of stuff in the past or any inherent issues you may have with the direction of the university, etc. On a scale of 1-10 how bad do you think this is?
I get the general sense that this issue in isolation isn't that egregious but is a case where people step back and say MU is f'ing this up again. In other words, this is really about the compounding effect and perhaps the dashing of hope that Lovell "would be different".
The reason I ask, is because a lot of this is legacy issue, prior to Lovell, and also a lot of competing stakeholders to manage. I'm hopeful that this is a clearing of the deck that should new issues arise will be dealt with successfully.
On your 10 point scale, I think this is about an 8. This issue goes to the very core of Marquette's values as an institution. Does it allow people to express themselves openly or does it police members' speech on the basis that some things are just too difficult to allow be said? This all plays in to this new paradigm where we have to "protect" students from harmful ideas and uncomfortable situations. Not only is that patronizing, it is an ineffective way to educate young people about the way the real world operates. When you contrast Marquette's approach with that of an institution like University of Chicago, you see some of the reasons why Marquette will never be an elite academic institution.
-
I was told by a very good source that there was a decent chance that McAdams would have taken the semester suspension (not happily but might have accepted it). However, the demand for an apology has caused the situation to escalate again and it is 100% headed to court now. Lovell blew this big time, and as I've said before, MU is heading towards a massive beatdown from the WI Supreme Court. Why Lovell inserted himself into this so personally with the apology demand is baffling.
So if McAdams wins this case do you think he will remain at MU and continue to be a thorn in their side or retire?
-
On your 10 point scale, I think this is about an 8. This issue goes to the very core of Marquette's values as an institution. Does it allow people to express themselves openly or does it police members' speech on the basis that some things are just too difficult to allow be said? This all plays in to this new paradigm where we have to "protect" students from harmful ideas and uncomfortable situations. Not only is that patronizing, it is an ineffective way to educate young people about the way the real world operates. When you contrast Marquette's approach with that of an institution like University of Chicago, you see some of the reasons why Marquette will never be an elite academic institution.
The irony of your statement (IMO) is that little to none of the current back and forth has anything to do with the undergrad students ability to speak out. It's purely about McAdams demanding he be able to say whatever he wants without repercussion. Yes, the university have mucked it up some, but they also have a responsibility to stand up for themselves as an institution and for all of their students, including the grad student.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your response and point of view, and not trying to be argumentative.
-
I was told by a very good source that there was a decent chance that McAdams would have taken the semester suspension (not happily but might have accepted it). However, the demand for an apology has caused the situation to escalate again and it is 100% headed to court now. Lovell blew this big time, and as I've said before, MU is heading towards a massive beatdown from the WI Supreme Court. Why Lovell inserted himself into this so personally with the apology demand is baffling.
Then McAdams is just as petty if not more so than Lovell. As a human being with the ability to feel, McAdams could have apologized at least for what the grad student went through....however he'd rather keep his petty spat going.
-
On your 10 point scale, I think this is about an 8. This issue goes to the very core of Marquette's values as an institution. Does it allow people to express themselves openly or does it police members' speech on the basis that some things are just too difficult to allow be said? This all plays in to this new paradigm where we have to "protect" students from harmful ideas and uncomfortable situations. Not only is that patronizing, it is an ineffective way to educate young people about the way the real world operates. When you contrast Marquette's approach with that of an institution like University of Chicago, you see some of the reasons why Marquette will never be an elite academic institution.
Title IX mandates by the Obama Administration also play into this.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/gender-identity-vs.-catholic-identity-face-off-after-title-xi-expansions/
-
Title IX mandates by the Obama Administration also play into this.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/gender-identity-vs.-catholic-identity-face-off-after-title-xi-expansions/
And remember there are lingering Title IX and Cleary Act issues for non-related incidents that are likely factoring into this.
-
The irony of your statement (IMO) is that little to none of the current back and forth has anything to do with the undergrad students ability to speak out. It's purely about McAdams demanding he be able to say whatever he wants without repercussion. Yes, the university have mucked it up some, but they also have a responsibility to stand up for themselves as an institution and for all of their students, including the grad student.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your response and point of view, and not trying to be argumentative.
The irony of your statement (IMO) is that what McAdams was punished for was writing about his concerns regarding an instructor limiting an undergrad's right to present his viewpoint during class. I agree that this has taken on a life of its own, but that is because the university overreacted and became more concerned about defending a grad student with a popular viewpoint than engaging in a reasonable review of how academic freedom issues are handled on campus.
-
And remember there are lingering Title IX and Cleary Act issues for non-related incidents that are likely factoring into this.
Why MU has not requested a religious exemption is telling.
-
The irony of your statement (IMO) is that what McAdams was punished for was writing about his concerns regarding an instructor limiting an undergrad's right to present his viewpoint during class. I agree that this has taken on a life of its own, but that is because the university overreacted and became more concerned about defending a grad student with a popular viewpoint than engaging in a reasonable review of how academic freedom issues are handled on campus.
All well and good, but MU is not the one that short circuited the opportunity for that conversation by taking it into the public domain, McAdams did.
McAdams was wrong in what he did, he could have taken his punishment and still worked within the university to seek redress for the wronging of the undergrad. However he chose (and MU should have known this) to yell fire in a theater. You can't reason with someone who is unreasonable.
Maybe, I'm in the wrong, but I'd rather the university come down on the side of someone getting death threats then on the side of allowing a professor to pontificate.
-
The irony of your statement (IMO) is that what McAdams was punished for was writing about his concerns regarding an instructor limiting an undergrad's right to present his viewpoint during class. I agree that this has taken on a life of its own, but that is because the university overreacted and became more concerned about defending a grad student with a popular viewpoint than engaging in a reasonable review of how academic freedom issues are handled on campus.
Dude didn't just write about concerns. He disclosed contact info about the grad student on a public blog which led to harassment.
-
All well and good, but MU is not the one that short circuited the opportunity for that conversation by taking it into the public domain, McAdams did.
McAdams was wrong in what he did, he could have taken his punishment and still worked within the university to seek redress for the wronging of the undergrad. However he chose (and MU should have known this) to yell fire in a theater. You can't reason with someone who is unreasonable.
Maybe, I'm in the wrong, but I'd rather the university come down on the side of someone getting death threats then on the side of allowing a professor to pontificate.
Is the University going after those who sent the "death threats". I am sure they can track down their IP addresses.
-
Is the University going after those who sent the "death threats". I am sure they can track down their IP addresses.
Not practical for a whole bunch of reasons.
-
Is the University going after those who sent the "death threats". I am sure they can track down their IP addresses.
Why is that the universities obligation?
Would you be more comfortable if MU had gone after those individuals and spent resources on chasing them down?
-
All well and good, but MU is not the one that short circuited the opportunity for that conversation by taking it into the public domain, McAdams did.
McAdams was wrong in what he did, he could have taken his punishment and still worked within the university to seek redress for the wronging of the undergrad. However he chose (and MU should have known this) to yell fire in a theater. You can't reason with someone who is unreasonable.
Maybe, I'm in the wrong, but I'd rather the university come down on the side of someone getting death threats then on the side of allowing a professor to pontificate.
Whether you agree with what McAdams said or did is not the point. Marquette as an institution has to be the bigger "person" in all of this. Instead of taking the higher road, Marquette is stooping down to McAdams' level and engaging in a back and forth of pot shots. Marquette could have taken McAdams' blog post in stride, discussed the matter with him without suspending or firing him, conducted a review, and announced its policy on this issue for the world to see moving forward. Instead, they jumped the gun, kicked the guy off campus, accused him of harassment, and garnered the reputation of a university with viewpoint intolerance. Not the right move.
And what McAdams' did was not akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater.
-
Dude didn't just write about concerns. He disclosed contact info about the grad student on a public blog which led to harassment.
All he did was link to a similarly public blog. Once you start a blog, you accept the possibility that people on the internet who don't like what you say might write nasty things to you: it's the 21st century.
And for the record, if anyone did send true threats to the instructor, I fully support prosecuting them to the fullest extent under the law. But McAdams' is not responsible for third parties' responses to his blog.
-
Whether you agree with what McAdams said or did is not the point. Marquette as an institution has to be the bigger "person" in all of this. Instead of taking the higher road, Marquette is stooping down to McAdams' level and engaging in a back and forth of pot shots. Marquette could have taken McAdams' blog post in stride, discussed the matter with him without suspending or firing him, conducted a review, and announced its policy on this issue for the world to see moving forward. Instead, they jumped the gun, kicked the guy off campus, accused him of harassment, and garnered the reputation of a university with viewpoint intolerance. Not the right move.
And what McAdams' did was not akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Your proposal is fine if this were not a pattern with McAdams, but he had done similar things repeatedly all of which were getting attention anyway. I'm glad they finally took it head on. They did it in a ham handed way, but I believe they were absolutely right to address the issue firmly.
And it is equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater. He mentioned a grad students name in a politically charged manner, the natural conclusion is that some people on the internet would go after her. Naming her had absolutely no value to accomplishing his stated "goal" of restoring "free speech" to campus. He also didn't name the undergrad student, why is that?
-
Your proposal is fine if this were not a pattern with McAdams, but he had done similar things repeatedly all of which were getting attention anyway. I'm glad they finally took it head on. They did it in a ham handed way, but I believe they were absolutely right to address the issue firmly.
And it is equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater. He mentioned a grad students name in a politically charged manner, the natural conclusion is that some people on the internet would go after her. Naming her had absolutely no value to accomplishing his stated "goal" of restoring "free speech" to campus. He also didn't name the undergrad student, why is that?
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is actionable because it poses an immediate risk of bodily harm to the individuals in the vicinity. Criticizing someone publicly on the internet does not do that. Yes, some readers may take things too far. But do we want everyone who criticizes Donald Trump on the internet to be held responsible for readers' responses. I don't believe so.
-
Dude didn't just write about concerns. He disclosed contact info about the grad student on a public blog which led to harassment.
No he didn't. He linked to her blog. On her blog, SHE had her contact information. She had her information out there for all to see. Lets not invent new facts here.
-
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is actionable because it poses an immediate risk of bodily harm to the individuals in the vicinity. Criticizing someone publicly on the internet does not do that. Yes, some readers may take things too far. But do we want everyone who criticizes Donald Trump on the internet to be held responsible for readers' responses. I don't believe so.
Trump has made himself a public figure with the space he is criticized for, the same can't be said for the grad student. McAdams wanted to public shame the TA, he should face consequences when that attempt to shame results in hurting the TA to the point that she had to leave the school.
-
No he didn't. He linked to her blog. On her blog, SHE had her contact information. She had her information out there for all to see. Lets not invent new facts here.
What did it matter? Her blog had nothing to do with the topic McAdams was pontificating about. He link to her blog specifically for the purpose of public shaming her....he had to know the internet being what it was that people would overreact....that's on him. If he doesn't have the moral fiber to accept that responsibility he doesn't really have a leg to stand on anywhere else.
-
Your proposal is fine if this were not a pattern with McAdams, but he had done similar things repeatedly all of which were getting attention anyway. I'm glad they finally took it head on. They did it in a ham handed way, but I believe they were absolutely right to address the issue firmly.
And it is equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater. He mentioned a grad students name in a politically charged manner, the natural conclusion is that some people on the internet would go after her. Naming her had absolutely no value to accomplishing his stated "goal" of restoring "free speech" to campus. He also didn't name the undergrad student, why is that?
The undergrad student was just that, an undergrad student....not the instructor...not the "authority" position in the classroom. The undergrad student is the victim here as far as I'm concerned. He attends a Catholic institution (allegedly) and brings up Catholic teachings and is cut off in the classroom...told he can go no further...embarrassed, humiliated for...gasp...having Catholic opinions at a Catholic university.
-
The undergrad student was just that, an undergrad student....not the instructor...not the "authority" position in the classroom. The undergrad student is the victim here as far as I'm concerned. He attends a Catholic institution (allegedly) and brings up Catholic teachings and is cut off in the classroom...told he can go no further...embarrassed, humiliated for...gasp...having Catholic opinions at a Catholic university.
hyperbole much? Humiliated, really? And even if he was humiliated he brought it to the attention of McAdams so shouldn't he be made public as well? And the answer for "humiliating" this student means the TA should be "humiliated" and in the process receive death threats?
-
The undergrad student was just that, an undergrad student....not the instructor...not the "authority" position in the classroom. The undergrad student is the victim here as far as I'm concerned. He attends a Catholic institution (allegedly) and brings up Catholic teachings and is cut off in the classroom...told he can go no further...embarrassed, humiliated for...gasp...having Catholic opinions at a Catholic university.
The undergrad got precisely the reaction he was looking for. Hard to characterize him as a victim.
-
The undergrad got precisely the reaction he was looking for. Hard to characterize him as a victim.
what was he supposed to do. Shut up and go along?
-
hyperbole much? Humiliated, really? And even if he was humiliated he brought it to the attention of McAdams so shouldn't he be made public as well? And the answer for "humiliating" this student means the TA should be "humiliated" and in the process receive death threats?
According to McAdams: The undergraduate student had attempted to “raise the concern” (note the euphemistic way mistreatment of a student is described) with the Arts & Sciences office, and then was referred to the Philosophy Department. There he was met with hostility, and received no redress at all.
One can infer after that, he went to McAdams. If the Administrations account differs I would like to hear about it, but I'm sure this will all come out in court.
-
what was he supposed to do. Shut up and go along?
Actually yes. I don't believe there is anyone on this board that believes how TA handle the situation was correct, but what she was intending was correct. The undergrad's topic, by all accounts including his, was off the line of discussion and the TA was within protocol to keep the discussion within in the framework of the lecture topic. She attempted to steer the discussion back to the topic, and unfortunately in the process made it seem like she was dismissing the students line of discussion in general as opposed to saying it wasn't relevant for the current topic.
-
Actually yes. I don't believe there is anyone on this board that believes how TA handle the situation was correct, but what she was intending was correct. The undergrad's topic, by all accounts including his, was off the line of discussion and the TA was within protocol to keep the discussion within in the framework of the lecture topic. She attempted to steer the discussion back to the topic, and unfortunately in the process made it seem like she was dismissing the students line of discussion in general as opposed to saying it wasn't relevant for the current topic.
Right.
You can't just bring up any topic in class at any time you want, and expect the instructor and 30-some other paying students to just focus on whatever you want to talk about. That would be chaos.
-
According to McAdams: The undergraduate student had attempted to “raise the concern” (note the euphemistic way mistreatment of a student is described) with the Arts & Sciences office, and then was referred to the Philosophy Department. There he was met with hostility, and received no redress at all.
One can infer after that, he went to McAdams. If the Administrations account differs I would like to hear about it, but I'm sure this will all come out in court.
Mistreatment??? Good lord, if the political leanings were reversed and the undergrad was arguing that plants are people and the TA told him that was a dumb idea and the undergrad went to some liberal prof to blog about how the student was humiliated and mistreated you'd be calling for this undergrad to suck it up, deal with it, quit being a baby, etc.
-
what was he supposed to do. Shut up and go along?
No - he probably should have made an unannounced recording of the conversation without permission of the other party and brought it to someone completely unrelated to the class and discipline process.
Edit: You seriously cannot find 3 people who behaved more poorly and childish in this type of situation. I am now warming up to the whole sweep it under the rug and shut-up argument because all three are very embarrassing and difficult to advocate for.
-
The real issue has nothing to do with the undergrad, Abbatte, or McAdams. The legacy here is in how the University leadership handled this.
Once more, our beloved alma mater has been betrayed by those who had the specific responsibility for safeguarding its interests. Everything else is parlor room masturbation.
(http://weinterrupt.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-shot-2010-05-30-at-9.27.23-PM.png)
-
Well the Administration used that publication to endorse their position regarding McAdams and foster their canard that Marquette's Catholic Identity is flourishing on campus. The student we don't hear about has certainly not experienced Catholic Identity flourishing on campus. Why doesn't Marquette just be honest and stop promoting the University as a Catholic Institution when it is clearly not; especially when it goes out of it's way to promote the LGBT community agenda.
You know who else promotes many aspects of the LGBT community agenda? Pope Francis.
-
Mistreatment??? Good lord, if the political leanings were reversed and the undergrad was arguing that plants are people and the TA told him that was a dumb idea and the undergrad went to some liberal prof to blog about how the student was humiliated and mistreated you'd be calling for this undergrad to suck it up, deal with it, quit being a baby, etc.
http://tech.mit.edu/V109/N21/gilber.21o.html
I guess someone at MIT thinks so.
https://neuroecology.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/plants-are-people-too/
http://www.salon.com/2009/12/23/vegetable_rights/
Yeah! Just shut down discussion at a liberal arts school if the TA deems it unworthy. This is not about liberal/conservative. A University should be the marketplace of open ideas, no matter how outlandish.
-
http://tech.mit.edu/V109/N21/gilber.21o.html
I guess someone at MIT thinks so.
https://neuroecology.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/plants-are-people-too/
http://www.salon.com/2009/12/23/vegetable_rights/
Yeah! Just shut down discussion at a liberal arts school if the TA deems it unworthy. This is not about liberal/conservative. A University should be the marketplace of open ideas, no matter how outlandish.
So if the student wanted to talk about Soviet economics in French class, the instructor can't shut down discussion, any topic is needs to be allowed?
-
Right.
You can't just bring up any topic in class at any time you want, and expect the instructor and 30-some other paying students to just focus on whatever you want to talk about. That would be chaos.
Except that's a red herring because that isn't what happened. The topic at hand included (or should have included) the Catholic point of view on this. It wasn't as if the class was a Stats class and the topic at hand was linear regression and the student brought this up. In fact, the topic at hand was very much should have included a discussion point on what the undergrad student was asking, as a Catholic...at a Catholic school.
-
The undergrad got precisely the reaction he was looking for. Hard to characterize him as a victim.
The undergrad shouldn't have been cut off like he was. Remember when universities used to act like universities? Before safe spaces were introduced.
-
The undergrad student was just that, an undergrad student....not the instructor...not the "authority" position in the classroom. The undergrad student is the victim here as far as I'm concerned. He attends a Catholic institution (allegedly) and brings up Catholic teachings and is cut off in the classroom...told he can go no further...embarrassed, humiliated for...gasp...having Catholic opinions at a Catholic university.
You've mentioned a few times about the student being cut off and embarrassed in class. I'm just curious where you picked that up -- the primary source doesn't mention it.
http://www.mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/11/marquette-philosophy-instructor-gay.html?m=1 (http://www.mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/11/marquette-philosophy-instructor-gay.html?m=1)
She listed some issues on the board, and came to “gay rights.” She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”
The student, a conservative who disagrees with some of the gay lobby’s notions of “gay rights” (such as gay marriage) approached her after class and told her he thought the issue deserved to be discussed. Indeed, he told Abbate that if she dismisses an entire argument because of her personal views, that sets a terrible precedent for the class.
Seriously asking: do you have a source or a link indicating he was shouted down and embarrassed in class? I haven't seen it, but I haven't exactly been paying close attention lately.
-
http://tech.mit.edu/V109/N21/gilber.21o.html
I guess someone at MIT thinks so.
https://neuroecology.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/plants-are-people-too/
http://www.salon.com/2009/12/23/vegetable_rights/
Yeah! Just shut down discussion at a liberal arts school if the TA deems it unworthy. This is not about liberal/conservative. A University should be the marketplace of open ideas, no matter how outlandish.
Well said. We allow some of the most ridiculous stuff on campuses, including MU, and it isn't shut off. Yet when a Catholic brings in a Catholic position at a Catholic school (think about that for 10 seconds), he's shut down. Yet plenty of topics at MU over the years that are entirely ANTI-CATHOLIC in teaching, are allowed to go on in the name of academic freedom, discovery, etc, etc.
-
You know who else promotes many aspects of the LGBT community agenda? Pope Francis.
True! But he also warns against it as taught in academia. We should treat all with respect and as the Pope himself has said, "who am I to judge", but the LGBT community should also respect the Catholic view point at a "Catholic" institution, which does not seem to be the case at Marquette.
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-strongly-criticizes-gender-theory-comparing-nuclear-arms
-
http://tech.mit.edu/V109/N21/gilber.21o.html
I guess someone at MIT thinks so.
https://neuroecology.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/plants-are-people-too/
http://www.salon.com/2009/12/23/vegetable_rights/
Yeah! Just shut down discussion at a liberal arts school if the TA deems it unworthy. This is not about liberal/conservative. A University should be the marketplace of open ideas, no matter how outlandish.
(https://i.imgur.com/tyTc1Nl.jpg)
-
You've mentioned a few times about the student being cut off and embarrassed in class. I'm just curious where you picked that up -- the primary source doesn't mention it.
http://www.mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/11/marquette-philosophy-instructor-gay.html?m=1 (http://www.mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/11/marquette-philosophy-instructor-gay.html?m=1)
Seriously asking: do you have a source or a link indicating he was shouted down and embarrassed in class? I haven't seen it, but I haven't exactly been paying close attention lately.
I never said he was shouted down. She said certain topics "were beyond dispute" and she would not allow them in class, even though some of the very subjects discussed in class most certainly are beyond dispute all the way up to the teachings of the church. This was told to the students who attempted to bring up differing opinions. Basically saying if you have these views, you are out of line and cut off. Shouted down? No. But sending a message that your opinions don't matter, aren't acceptable and somehow unsavory because they "were beyond dispute"...yes.
He said he was deeply offended when she would not allow his CATHOLIC points of view on the subject. https://jonathanturley.org/2016/03/31/marquette-university-professor-suspended-and-facing-termination-for-blog-that-criticized-colleague-for-allegedly-barring-criticism-of-same-sex-marriage-in-a-philosophy-class/
AFTER class, he went to her to express his dissatisfaction with that approach.
"Regardless of why I'm against gay marriage, it's still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person's opinion when they may have different opinions"
She responded....in the link
http://bernardgoldberg.com/the-shame-of-liberals-at-marquette/
-
Except that's a red herring because that isn't what happened. The topic at hand included (or should have included) the Catholic point of view on this. It wasn't as if the class was a Stats class and the topic at hand was linear regression and the student brought this up. In fact, the topic at hand was very much should have included a discussion point on what the undergrad student was asking, as a Catholic...at a Catholic school.
I think your point here has some credence to it, but this is exactly what could have been resolved in the after-class discussion. I personally don't have an issue with the graduate student waving off the comment in class as "off topic", but having the conversation after class, the undergraduate student should have the chance to communicate why it is on topic.
Now obviously, the graduate student did not handle that after-class conversation well at all and things snow-balled from there.
But I have absolutely no issue with how the graduate student acted during the class itself. It doesn't sound like she said anything, during class, that would have humiliated the undergraduate student. (Though I definitely agree she completely overstepped her bounds after class)
-
I never said he was shouted down. She said certain topics "were beyond dispute" and she would not allow them in class, even though some of the very subjects discussed in class most certainly are beyond dispute all the way up to the teachings of the church. This was told to the students who attempted to bring up differing opinions. Basically saying if you have these views, you are out of line and cut off. Shouted down? No. But sending a message that your opinions don't matter, aren't acceptable and somehow unsavory because they "were beyond dispute"...yes.
He said he was deeply offended when she would not allow his CATHOLIC points of view on the subject. https://jonathanturley.org/2016/03/31/marquette-university-professor-suspended-and-facing-termination-for-blog-that-criticized-colleague-for-allegedly-barring-criticism-of-same-sex-marriage-in-a-philosophy-class/
AFTER class, he went to her to express his dissatisfaction with that approach.
"Regardless of why I'm against gay marriage, it's still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person's opinion when they may have different opinions"
She responded....in the link
http://bernardgoldberg.com/the-shame-of-liberals-at-marquette/
OK, we're all entitled to opinions but not facts. Fact, he wasn't embarrassed in class, she made a dumb statement about gay rights in class and none of the students responded to it...in class, after the class he confronted her about it and she handled it poorly.
This is per McAdams original blog on the subject.
So he wasn't trying to offer a catholic opinion on a catholic subject in a catholic school. He was having a private conversation with a TA who expressed opinions that should not be held by someone that fosters open dialogue within the university setting.
-
I never said he was shouted down. She said certain topics "were beyond dispute" and she would not allow them in class, even though some of the very subjects discussed in class most certainly are beyond dispute all the way up to the teachings of the church. This was told to the students who attempted to bring up differing opinions. Basically saying if you have these views, you are out of line and cut off. Shouted down? No. But sending a message that your opinions don't matter, aren't acceptable and somehow unsavory because they "were beyond dispute"...yes.
He said he was deeply offended when she would not allow his CATHOLIC points of view on the subject. https://jonathanturley.org/2016/03/31/marquette-university-professor-suspended-and-facing-termination-for-blog-that-criticized-colleague-for-allegedly-barring-criticism-of-same-sex-marriage-in-a-philosophy-class/
AFTER class, he went to her to express his dissatisfaction with that approach.
"Regardless of why I'm against gay marriage, it's still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person's opinion when they may have different opinions"
She responded....in the link
http://bernardgoldberg.com/the-shame-of-liberals-at-marquette/
I believe the previous point was that none of that occurred during class. Going through the link kinsella provided, and the links you provided, I am having an extremely difficult time finding anything that relates to the grad student "humiliating" the undergrad student DURING class.
Again, I believe the way she treated the undergrad after class was inappropriate.
-
OK, we're all entitled to opinions but not facts. Fact, he wasn't embarrassed in class, she made a dumb statement about gay rights in class and none of the students responded to it...in class, after the class he confronted her about it and she handled it poorly.
This is per McAdams original blog on the subject.
His words (the undergraduate) are different....he said he was "PERSONALLY OFFENDED". One of the definitions of offended is "embarrassed"
-
I believe the previous point was that none of that occurred during class. Going through the link kinsella provided, and the links you provided, I am having an extremely difficult time finding anything that relates to the grad student "humiliating" the undergrad student DURING class.
Again, I believe the way she treated the undergrad after class was inappropriate.
From Turley's article:
Abbate appears to have tried to avoid the inclusion of same-sex marriage in the discussion of John Rawls’s equal liberty principle under which every person has a right to as many basic liberties as possible, as long as they don’t conflict with those of others. She had asked for examples of violations of this principle and raised classic examples of seat belts and laws that prevent people from selling their own organs. That is when one student raised the ban on gay marriage violated the principle. That would seem to be an interesting example for debate. Indeed, in my legal philosophy class, I often raise that and other controversies as good vehicles for passionate and contemporary debates. Abbate clearly did not want to trigger a broader debate and cut off the example. That caused the student to object later to being “very disappointed” and “personally offended.” The conversation after class included the suggestion of the student that he had seen data suggesting that children of gay parents “do a lot worse in life.”
She cut him off in class. LATER, he told her how personally offended he was...which occurred when he was cut off. He expressed it afterward, but the offense took place when she cut him off.
-
From Turley's article:
Abbate appears to have tried to avoid the inclusion of same-sex marriage in the discussion of John Rawls’s equal liberty principle under which every person has a right to as many basic liberties as possible, as long as they don’t conflict with those of others. She had asked for examples of violations of this principle and raised classic examples of seat belts and laws that prevent people from selling their own organs. That is when one student raised the ban on gay marriage violated the principle. That would seem to be an interesting example for debate. Indeed, in my legal philosophy class, I often raise that and other controversies as good vehicles for passionate and contemporary debates. Abbate clearly did not want to trigger a broader debate and cut off the example. That caused the student to object later to being “very disappointed” and “personally offended.” The conversation after class included the suggestion of the student that he had seen data suggesting that children of gay parents “do a lot worse in life.”
She cut him off in class. LATER, he told her how personally offended he was...which occurred when he was cut off. He expressed it afterward, but the offense took place when she cut him off.
Well, I would honestly say that the author here is making the assumption that the undergrad being "disappointed and personally offended" is directly related to the incident during class. And I can see why reading the language the author here decided to use could raise some to agree with that assumption.
And adding on to the above, did this author discuss directly with the undergrad student on this? This is the only article where I have now seen the assumption that he was embarrassed during class. Even in McAdam's blog post that was not spelled out.
I have a hard time believing a student would be offended by cutting off the example during class. I can completely believe him being offended by the way she acted after class.
-
Well, I would honestly say that the author here is making the assumption that the undergrad being "disappointed and personally offended" is directly related to the incident during class. And I can see why reading the language the author here decided to use could raise some to agree with that assumption.
I have a hard time believing a student would be offended by cutting off the example during class. I can completely believe him being offended by the way she acted after class.
I don't have a hard time believing that at all. If one is a deeply religious person and this stuff is the core of your being, and you're told your beliefs are not worthy, are beyond dispute when you bring them up on a subject that called for such example. Why would it be hard to imagine someone feeling to be belittled, offended, embarrassed, etc?
In fact, that compelled him to actually talk to her after class, because he was so embarrassed and offended....that drove that interaction.
-
I don't have a hard time believing that at all. If one is a deeply religious person and this stuff is the core of your being, and you're told your beliefs are not worthy, are beyond dispute when you bring them up on a subject that called for such example. Why would it be hard to imagine someone feeling to be belittled, offended, embarrassed, etc?
In fact, that compelled him to actually talk to her after class, because he was so embarrassed and offended....that drove that interaction.
Ok, hyperbole here. She cut him off during class. She did not say his beliefs were not worthy or beyond dispute DURING class. Again, as I spelled out in my previous post, I understand him being offended and embarrassed by her after-class actions.
-
Your proposal is fine if this were not a pattern with McAdams, but he had done similar things repeatedly all of which were getting attention anyway. I'm glad they finally took it head on. They did it in a ham handed way, but I believe they were absolutely right to address the issue firmly.
And it is equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater. He mentioned a grad students name in a politically charged manner, the natural conclusion is that some people on the internet would go after her. Naming her had absolutely no value to accomplishing his stated "goal" of restoring "free speech" to campus. He also didn't name the undergrad student, why is that?
I would guess because the student is clearly just a student, and not a teacher (in his mind).
-
So if McAdams wins this case do you think he will remain at MU and continue to be a thorn in their side or retire?
From what I understand, he wants to teach.
The only question is how long this whole process takes. He wins in the WI Supreme Court, but it could take a while to get there. If he loses in lower court, appeals could send the case directly to Supremes to expedite things since it's headed there anyhow.
-
Ok, hyperbole here. She cut him off during class. She did not say his beliefs were not worthy or beyond dispute DURING class. Again, as I spelled out in my previous post, I understand him being offended and embarrassed by her after-class actions.
I disagree, she did the way I read it. She said there were certain things that were beyond dispute and she would have no part of those things up for discussion.
-
glow
The problem is not Lovell's willingness to make a decision. The issue is to make the right decision consistently.
We are not talking about the mid-level Purchasing Manager here. The man is the Chief Executive of an enterprise with an international constituency. I expect him to perform accordingly.
And as we both seem to know Lovell needs to become less stubborn, obstinate, and close-minded on many things in order to mature into the seasoned decision-maker we need to lead Marquette. My only regret is that we have to suffer through his education process.
Your comment reminded me of the Pepsi Hypodermic Needle Case. I was with PepsiCo Foods International in Hong Kong when a series of hypos were being reported found in cans of Pepsi. The first report was concerning. But when reports of needles in cans started cropping up all over the US Pepsi knew it was a hoax that was pointing towards lawsuits.
Wayne Callaway made numerous decisions that were firm, determined, and correct:
1. Contacted the FBI because he knew this was a criminal matter
2. Refused to pull product becuase no one had been injured or harmed
3. Launched an expensive media campaign that showed how cans are rinsed multiple times, filled, then capped in a matter of seconds to demonstrate the physical impossibility of needles in cans
4. Worked with retailers to scan through in-store video
Despite a national outcry for Pepsi to order a massive recall Callaway refused to give in. And when investigators started unearthing video of idiots opening cans of Pepsi in the stores and actually dropping needles into the cans Pepsi had the evidence it needed to prove this was a scam.
Perhaps the most important decision Callaway made was to seek criminal charges against the people who had tried to extort money out of Pepsi.
Most CEOs would not have held firm as did Callaway. Despite overwhelming negative public reaction he refused to order a recall and invested millions in an education campaign while working with the FBI to disprove the claims. Initially, PepsiCo stock 3% of its value in the first days of the 'scandal' but ultimately more than doubled by the end of that year.
Making decisions is easy. Making the right decision consistently is what separates the leaders from the pretenders.
Lovell demonstrated a lousy decision making process from day one. He was mesmerized by Wojo and his Power Point and the Duke name and look what that has gotten us.
Lovells primary job is to raise money for the University and when he does this it makes the job much harder and he in effect hurts the university in the long term. I have had a number of dealings with him and am not very impressed.
We need to get our endowment over $1 Billion if we are truly going to be able to compete and be a leading institution. Lovell is showing he is not the guy to get the job done.
-
Lovell demonstrated a lousy decision making process from day one. He was mesmerized by Wojo and his Power Point and the Duke name and look what that has gotten us.
Lovells primary job is to raise money for the University and when he does this it makes the job much harder and he in effect hurts the university in the long term. I have had a number of dealings with him and am not very impressed.
We need to get our endowment over $1 Billion if we are truly going to be able to compete and be a leading institution. Lovell is showing he is not the guy to get the job done.
Whatever Ners.
Two items that stand out from Lovell's time will have a huge impact, the partnership with the Bucks on the exercise program/building/research program and the partnership between biomedical engineering and MCW. That doesn't count that fundraising is up and student engagement has been great.
He ain't perfect that's for sure but it could be a whole lot worse and I think it will only get better with time
-
Initially I was with McAdams on this despite being an agnostic who's view on religion is only a millimeter to right of comedian Bill Maher. I accept the fact that MU is a Catholic and Jesuit institution, but that had absolutely nothing to do with why I matriculated there and as an alum, I've always resented the fact that MU swims in its religious identity to a much greater degree than other Jesuit schools such as BC, Georgetown, and Fordham. I feel very strongly that MU's parochial midwestern attitude about preserving Catholic identity at all costs even to the detriment of its advancement, is keeping it from greatness and that was true long before Mike Lovell started running the place. That said, after following this story closely for over 2 years, I've done a complete 180 and have come to the conclusion that McAdams needs to go. The guy is a menace and the longer he's allowed to continue this BS the more damage he will do to our institution. I wish Lovell would just fire him and say publically that he did so, not because of his un pc conservative viewpoints or his abusive behavior towards a graduate student instructor, but because he's a total effin a hole! Let him sue! The jury will realize that the guy is an a hole of the first order and won't be sympathetic to his cause!
-
Initially I was with McAdams on this despite being an agnostic who's view on religion is only a millimeter to right of comedian Bill Maher. I accept the fact that MU is a Catholic and Jesuit institution, but that had absolutely nothing to do with why I matriculated there and as an alum, I've always resented the fact that MU swims in its religious identity to a much greater degree than other Jesuit schools such as BC, Georgetown, and Fordham. I feel very strongly that MU's parochial midwestern attitude about preserving Catholic identity at all costs even to the detriment of its advancement, is keeping it from greatness and that was true long before Mike Lovell started running the place. That said, after following this story closely for over 2 years, I've done a complete 180 and have come to the conclusion that McAdams needs to go. The guy is a menace and the longer he's allowed to continue this BS the more damage he will do to our institution. I wish Lovell would just fire him and say publically that he did so, not because of his un pc conservative viewpoints or his abusive behavior towards a graduate student instructor, but because he's a total effin a hole! Let him sue! The jury will realize that the guy is an a hole of the first order and won't be sympathetic to his cause!
first off, juries don't rule on A-hole-ness. secondly, let's say mcadams is wrong. he might be an example of the furthest right one can take the traditional MU jesuit brand. on the other hand, lovell, has taken the MU brand and crapped on it. he is trying to look moderate while coming across as the leftie as usual university administrator who think their position is the status quo. in other words, universities across the nation are trying to re-define the normal and tell us, these a times are a changing. well, they may be, but at some point, a line needs to be drawn. the squeaky wheels are getting all the grease, but i'm digressing
which brings me to another question? why did MU go off the tracks and fill the president's position with a "lay person" instead of the traditional jesuit? this may be where many see lovell as NOT qualified. oh, he goes to church a lot? well if that's the qualifier, then we missed out on many others. but, back to the point-an experienced person/leader would have handled this not with emotion and right wing/left wing flavor, but with a firm and dignified touch that may be not necessarily be universally agreed upon, but respected.
-
which brings me to another question? why did MU go off the tracks and fill the president's position with a "lay person" instead of the traditional jesuit?
This part has been a long time coming. In my opinion the lack of qualified candidates was the driver. Oh that and they tried but it was a disaster (Pilarz).
-
Initially I was with McAdams on this despite being an agnostic who's view on religion is only a millimeter to right of comedian Bill Maher. I accept the fact that MU is a Catholic and Jesuit institution, but that had absolutely nothing to do with why I matriculated there and as an alum, I've always resented the fact that MU swims in its religious identity to a much greater degree than other Jesuit schools such as BC, Georgetown, and Fordham. I feel very strongly that MU's parochial midwestern attitude about preserving Catholic identity at all costs even to the detriment of its advancement, is keeping it from greatness and that was true long before Mike Lovell started running the place. That said, after following this story closely for over 2 years, I've done a complete 180 and have come to the conclusion that McAdams needs to go. The guy is a menace and the longer he's allowed to continue this BS the more damage he will do to our institution. I wish Lovell would just fire him and say publically that he did so, not because of his un pc conservative viewpoints or his abusive behavior towards a graduate student instructor, but because he's a total effin a hole! Let him sue! The jury will realize that the guy is an a hole of the first order and won't be sympathetic to his cause!
The only people resembling a "jury" that matters are the seven WI Supreme Court Justices, and there are five of them ready to stomp all over MU. This is a fight MU will lose and lose badly.
-
Initially I was with McAdams on this despite being an agnostic who's view on religion is only a millimeter to right of comedian Bill Maher. I accept the fact that MU is a Catholic and Jesuit institution, but that had absolutely nothing to do with why I matriculated there and as an alum, I've always resented the fact that MU swims in its religious identity to a much greater degree than other Jesuit schools such as BC, Georgetown, and Fordham. I feel very strongly that MU's parochial midwestern attitude about preserving Catholic identity at all costs even to the detriment of its advancement, is keeping it from greatness and that was true long before Mike Lovell started running the place. That said, after following this story closely for over 2 years, I've done a complete 180 and have come to the conclusion that McAdams needs to go. The guy is a menace and the longer he's allowed to continue this BS the more damage he will do to our institution. I wish Lovell would just fire him and say publically that he did so, not because of his un pc conservative viewpoints or his abusive behavior towards a graduate student instructor, but because he's a total effin a hole! Let him sue! The jury will realize that the guy is an a hole of the first order and won't be sympathetic to his cause!
I find this part interesting. While certain folks on here think that MU has strayed light years from the true Catholic faith, your view seems to be that it's far more dogmatic than other Jesuit institutions.
Personally, I think that while much at MU has changed over the last 40 years, the Jesuit philosophy of subtle 'treat your neighbor with dignity and respect' culture is very similar to when I was there. In fact, I think MU does a better job of making sure kids are touched by that these days through service work, etc. Still, it's an environment where I believe both Catholics and non-Catholics (heck, maybe even non-Christians) can be comfortable and thrive.
As to the lay president thing, that's an easy answer. There are literally scores of non priests qualified to be President of a large university. If there were more than a handful of Jesuits I'd be surprised. Wave of the future folks. Unfortunately the BOT figured that out 2-3 years too late and our 'rebuild' was extended.
-
Initially I was with McAdams on this despite being an agnostic who's view on religion is only a millimeter to right of comedian Bill Maher. I accept the fact that MU is a Catholic and Jesuit institution, but that had absolutely nothing to do with why I matriculated there and as an alum, I've always resented the fact that MU swims in its religious identity to a much greater degree than other Jesuit schools such as BC, Georgetown, and Fordham. I feel very strongly that MU's parochial midwestern attitude about preserving Catholic identity at all costs even to the detriment of its advancement, is keeping it from greatness and that was true long before Mike Lovell started running the place. That said, after following this story closely for over 2 years, I've done a complete 180 and have come to the conclusion that McAdams needs to go. The guy is a menace and the longer he's allowed to continue this BS the more damage he will do to our institution. I wish Lovell would just fire him and say publically that he did so, not because of his un pc conservative viewpoints or his abusive behavior towards a graduate student instructor, but because he's a total effin a hole! Let him sue! The jury will realize that the guy is an a hole of the first order and won't be sympathetic to his cause!
Did you matriculate from any of the other 20 Jesuits universities in the US to make that comparison about whom is sticking more to their Catholic anchors than another? I'm curious how you came up with the claim you made, or are you really just comparing it to BC and G'Town. Do you even know where Creighton, Wheeling, SLU, Gonzaga, etc, stand in terms of Catholicism? I'm simply asking.
I think your last two sentences are funny, I suspect wrong when all is said and done assuming it goes to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
-
I find this part interesting. While certain folks on here think that MU has strayed light years from the true Catholic faith, your view seems to be that it's far more dogmatic than other Jesuit institutions.
Personally, I think that while much at MU has changed over the last 40 years, the Jesuit philosophy of subtle 'treat your neighbor with dignity and respect' culture is very similar to when I was there. In fact, I think MU does a better job of making sure kids are touched by that these days through service work, etc. Still, it's an environment where I believe both Catholics and non-Catholics (heck, maybe even non-Christians) can be comfortable and thrive.
As to the lay president thing, that's an easy answer. There are literally scores of non priests qualified to be President of a large university. If there were more than a handful of Jesuits I'd be surprised. Wave of the future folks. Unfortunately the BOT figured that out 2-3 years too late and our 'rebuild' was extended.
With you all the way glow.
Being an authentic Catholic university is much more than fighting false culture wars. MU is as Catholic as they come.
-
With you all the way glow.
Being an authentic Catholic university is much more than fighting false culture wars. MU is as Catholic as they come.
More than that, yes. But MU is not being fully Catholic if it doesn't fight the culture wars at all (or is on the other side).
-
Who says that Marquette is "fully Catholic" in that respect?
I am a non-Catholic that went there 30 years ago, took 7 or 8 theology and philosophy courses, and never recall any sort of culture war fight where Catholic dogma was emphasized over anything else. And those fights existed back then without the label.
I thought that by and large the Jesuits I had for professors were excellent. They did a great job encouraging debate and intellectual rigor. They didn't view their job as fighting culture wars, but developing young adults who are able to use their God given abilities.
And this is where IMO Abatte failed. She didn't meet this standard, NOT by shutting down the debate in the classroom, but by refusing to acknowledge it afterwards.
None of this excuses McAdams' actions however. He's wrapping himself in the "Catholic identity" nonsense because it gives him another angle to endear himself to the people who ALWAYS see themselves as victims. (Many in this subject.)
-
Well written Sultan.
-
Who says that Marquette is "fully Catholic" in that respect?
I am a non-Catholic that went there 30 years ago, took 7 or 8 theology and philosophy courses, and never recall any sort of culture war fight where Catholic dogma was emphasized over anything else. And those fights existed back then without the label.
I thought that by and large the Jesuits I had for professors were excellent. They did a great job encouraging debate and intellectual rigor. They didn't view their job as fighting culture wars, but developing young adults who are able to use their God given abilities.
And this is where IMO Abatte failed. She didn't meet this standard, NOT by shutting down the debate in the classroom, but by refusing to acknowledge it afterwards.
None of this excuses McAdams' actions however. He's wrapping himself in the "Catholic identity" nonsense because it gives him another angle to endear himself to the people who ALWAYS see themselves as victims. (Many in this subject.)
Most of the Jesuits I had for profs were great. It wasn't the profs that had me concerned, it was and still is the administration.
You took 7 or 8 theology classes? Minored in Theology?
My complaints back then that continue today are that MU would go outside of Catholic teachings to allow Man Mcguire and others to espouse non Catholic teachings in the name of academic freedom. Ok. Fine. Yet when people have principled beliefs grounded in Catholic teachings, all too often they are shut down. That's a huge WTF for many of us, even those that only took three theology classes (the required amount) and two of mine were Islam and Hinduism. ;)
-
Most of the Jesuits I had for profs were great. It wasn't the profs that had me concerned, it was and still is the administration.
You took 7 or 8 theology classes? Minored in Theology?
My complaints back then that continue today are that MU would go outside of Catholic teachings to allow Man Mcguire and others to espouse non Catholic teachings in the name of academic freedom. Ok. Fine. Yet when people have principled beliefs grounded in Catholic teachings, all too often they are shut down. That's a huge WTF for many of us, even those that only took three theology classes (the required amount) and two of mine were Islam and Hinduism. ;)
I said 7 or 8 Theology and Philosophy classes. Now that I think about it, it was 7.
Intro to Theology - taught by a Lutheran
Islam - A very old Fr. Lambeck. Boring as hell.
Eastern Christianity - Fr. Alexander Golitzin. (I loved the guy but he could largely not connect with the students.)
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Alexander_(Golitzin)_of_Dallas,_the_South_and_the_Bulgarian_Diocese
Phil 050 - some guy with a Polish name who I think went on to become a Dean or Provost at St. Thomas
Theory of Ethics - Nancy Snow!!!
Philosophy of Art - some weird dude with long hair
Contemporary Ethical Issues - some normal professor guy who made no impression on me.
-
Sorry, you are correct...didn't read the philosophy part. Yes, we all took 3 Theo and 4 Phil if we were in A&S.
I enjoyed Islam with Father Lambeck.
Father Naus taught Oriental Philosophy (bet they changed the name of that course now....heeyna?) that I enjoyed.
I was the first student in MU history to earn the East Asian Studies minor, so I had to some interesting Phil and Theo courses that weren't typical of what many other students took.
-
From what I understand, he wants to teach.
The only question is how long this whole process takes. He wins in the WI Supreme Court, but it could take a while to get there. If he loses in lower court, appeals could send the case directly to Supremes to expedite things since it's headed there anyhow.
Do you think this case will go before the Wisconsin Supreme Court?
-
Do you think this case will go before the Wisconsin Supreme Court?
I do, if he loses in round one. And I think they will be itching to take it.
-
I do, if he loses in round one. And I think they will be itching to take it.
Jams
I was funnin' him. He mentions that in every post...
-
Do you think this case will go before the Wisconsin Supreme Court?
if they don't settle, but mcadams wants to grind it in and become a part of history. the father groppi of the conservative catholic freedom of speech movement if you will
-
Whatever Ners.
Two items that stand out from Lovell's time will have a huge impact, the partnership with the Bucks on the exercise program/building/research program and the partnership between biomedical engineering and MCW. That doesn't count that fundraising is up and student engagement has been great.
He ain't perfect that's for sure but it could be a whole lot worse and I think it will only get better with time
Partnership with the Bucks needs to be funded.
The other two items you pointed out are positives.
Yes all things considered we could have much worse. I just feel in this case it is an opportunity lost. Stand up to the PC crowd and become more respected for having courage to do so. Money will come flooding in. Lovell is taking the week kneed corporate stuffed shirt approach which I am not very high on.
-
Partnership with the Bucks needs to be funded.
The other two items you pointed out are positives.
Yes all things considered we could have much worse. I just feel in this case it is an opportunity lost. Stand up to the PC crowd and become more respected for having courage to do so. Money will come flooding in. Lovell is taking the week kneed corporate stuffed shirt approach which I am not very high on.
"Stand up to the PC crowd." LOL. Cliched talking point.
-
Do you think this case will go before the Wisconsin Supreme Court?
MU is completely unprepared for that eventuality, it seems. I don't know if MU thought McAdams would have trouble paying the legal bills and would be scared off, but he's not paying a cent for his representation, it's all pro bono. McAdams attorney, Rick Essenberg is a very smart guy and has argued before the WI Supreme Court previously, and knows the lay of the land and the personalities very well. And Lovell's twitter rant and the FAQ have been gifts to McAdams and his team.
I will make sure to be there for oral arguments.
-
Father Naus taught Oriental Philosophy (bet they changed the name of that course now....heeyna?) that I enjoyed.
Damn pcers! They stole "Orientals" from us but will never get our "Redskins"! As long as righteous folk like Chico are manning the battlements I feel safe!
-
MU is completely unprepared for that eventuality, it seems. I don't know if MU thought McAdams would have trouble paying the legal bills and would be scared off, but he's not paying a cent for his representation, it's all pro bono. McAdams attorney, Rick Essenberg is a very smart guy and has argued before the WI Supreme Court previously, and knows the lay of the land and the personalities very well. And Lovell's twitter rant and the FAQ have been gifts to McAdams and his team.
I will make sure to be there for oral arguments.
I know MU is most often represented by Foley and Lardner but I'm not 100% certain they are handling this specific matter. They were my top choice 'go to' guys over a 30 year banking career. Outstanding albeit expensive at a price point no different than the big houses in Chicago. BTW, I'm told that the original 'decency' communication was drafted entirely by outside counsel with MU's input.
-
Thanks glow. I think the idea that Marquette is "completely unprepared" for the eventuality that this lands in the WI Supreme Court to be rather specious. I'm sure Marquette is fully prepared for that eventuality and has been legally guided along this path throughout the process.
-
Thanks glow. I think the idea that Marquette is "completely unprepared" for the eventuality that this lands in the WI Supreme Court to be rather specious. I'm sure Marquette is fully prepared for that eventuality and has been legally guided along this path throughout the process.
I have to assume that MU has done the due diligence from a legal standpoint otherwise not doing it would be an extremely negligent action and very very poor leadership. That would cause me to call for walking out the entire administration. Like I said though, I really really doubt that is even a little true.
-
Thanks glow. I think the idea that Marquette is "completely unprepared" for the eventuality that this lands in the WI Supreme Court to be rather specious. I'm sure Marquette is fully prepared for that eventuality and has been legally guided along this path throughout the process.
I am glad to hear that MU is prepared to deal with a flaming mess.
But the real point is that there is a flaming mess.
And as we all know being prepared helps shape the outcome but does not ensure it.
The whole thing is a f#cking disaster that never had to happen.
-
I think Marquette has handled it great and I trust they will continue to do so.
-
I am glad to hear that MU is prepared to deal with a flaming mess.
But the real point is that there is a flaming mess.
And as we all know being prepared helps shape the outcome but does not ensure it.
The whole thing is a f#cking disaster that never had to happen.
Question, and perhaps this is steering into legal territory where I don't belong having an opinion, ever but here goes.....we seem to be reacting to the legal aspect of this that it's going to the Supreme Court and they are going to lose and somehow saying that MU shouldn't have taken the actions they took(which will result in the legal loss). What action should MU not have taken or what were they not legally justified in taking? Is it the apology aspect or that they took any action or what?
From my viewpoint of what actions they took(non-legally speaking) I support the administration. I may not totally agree with the PR and posturing but the direct actions with McAdams I agree with them. The complicating factor is the legal aspect and maybe I just don't get the law to know where MU crossed the line.
-
I think Marquette has handled it great and I trust they will continue to do so.
Well, that's why America is a great nation.
Some people favor ribeye or NY strip. And others think Spam is an acceptable main course.
-
Question, and perhaps this is steering into legal territory where I don't belong having an opinion, ever but here goes.....we seem to be reacting to the legal aspect of this that it's going to the Supreme Court and they are going to lose and somehow saying that MU shouldn't have taken the actions they took(which will result in the legal loss). What action should MU not have taken or what were they not legally justified in taking? Is it the apology aspect or that they took any action or what?
From my viewpoint of what actions they took(non-legally speaking) I support the administration. I may not totally agree with the PR and posturing but the direct actions with McAdams I agree with them. The complicating factor is the legal aspect and maybe I just don't get the law to know where MU crossed the line.
I am not an attorney so I don't know where that line is. But anytime something heads into the courts you lose control of the situation.
My point is that Marquette's leadership had a fiduciary responsibility to manage the outcome for its constituency. The fact that it is out of their control in many ways reflects terribly on that stewardship.
Reading about Marquette in the WSJ should be for achievement and accomplishment. Unfortunately, that is not the narrative playing out.
I think this entire matter could have been managed more effectively. It wasn't and that failure rests with those who are tasked with both the authority and responsibility.
What amazes me is that MU can go from the O'Brien fiasco to this in such short order...
-
I am not an attorney so I don't know where that line is. But anytime something heads into the courts you lose control of the situation.
My point is that Marquette's leadership had a fiduciary responsibility to manage the outcome for its constituency. The fact that it is out of their control in many ways reflects terribly on that stewardship.
Reading about Marquette in the WSJ should be for achievement and accomplishment. Unfortunately, that is not the narrative playing out.
I think this entire matter could have been managed more effectively. It wasn't and that failure rests with those who are tasked with both the authority and responsibility.
What amazes me is that MU can go from the O'Brien fiasco to this in such short order...
I don't think that is a fair bar to set at all. Just because the university gets negative press, doesn't mean they didn't do the right thing....to say otherwise is to let the inmates run the asylum. Additionally, things going into a court of law has nothing to do with whether it was the "right thing to do" for the university. They could make a decision, win in court and still be wrong or make a decision, lose in court and still be right to make that decision.
-
I don't think that is a fair bar to set at all. Just because the university gets negative press, doesn't mean they didn't do the right thing....to say otherwise is to let the inmates run the asylum. Additionally, things going into a court of law has nothing to do with whether it was the "right thing to do" for the university. They could make a decision, win in court and still be wrong or make a decision, lose in court and still be right to make that decision.
You are correct.
Pretty much every university worth anything gets bad press - even bad press as a result of its own good decisions. It is unavoidable. Some constituents will obsess about it. Most won't. And in the end you hope that the "positive" will outweigh the "negative" and your institution is viewed in a positive light.
-
Question, and perhaps this is steering into legal territory where I don't belong having an opinion, ever but here goes.....we seem to be reacting to the legal aspect of this that it's going to the Supreme Court and they are going to lose and somehow saying that MU shouldn't have taken the actions they took(which will result in the legal loss). What action should MU not have taken or what were they not legally justified in taking? Is it the apology aspect or that they took any action or what?
From my viewpoint of what actions they took(non-legally speaking) I support the administration. I may not totally agree with the PR and posturing but the direct actions with McAdams I agree with them. The complicating factor is the legal aspect and maybe I just don't get the law to know where MU crossed the line.
Here's what I am sure of eng. Outside counsel has been intimately involved since the first nano-second reviewing everything from the specifics of the actual matter to MU's HR and tenure policy. Now MU may have a 'few holes' in their position (no contract case is ever absolutely perfect) but rest assured they and their counsel view this as an acceptable legal risk given the facts on the ground. Put it another way, had outside counsel found a big hole, Mike would have slapped Mac on the wrist, tweaked the internal governing paperwork on a going forward basis, and nailed him next time. Agree or disagree, a little credit please.
-
Here's what I am sure of eng. Outside counsel has been intimately involved since the first nano-second reviewing everything from the specifics of the actual matter to MU's HR and tenure policy. Now MU may have a 'few holes' in their position (no contract case is ever absolutely perfect) but rest assured they and their counsel view this as an acceptable legal risk given the facts on the ground. Put it another way, had outside counsel found a big hole, Mike would have slapped Mac on the wrist, tweaked the internal governing paperwork on a going forward basis, and nailed him next time. Agree or disagree, a little credit please.
If this is the case, and I have no reason to doubt you, it is despicable that members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court "can't wait" to get this case and have already pre-determined the outcome before hearing any of the particulars simply, if true.
-
I don't think that is a fair bar to set at all. Just because the university gets negative press, doesn't mean they didn't do the right thing....to say otherwise is to let the inmates run the asylum. Additionally, things going into a court of law has nothing to do with whether it was the "right thing to do" for the university. They could make a decision, win in court and still be wrong or make a decision, lose in court and still be right to make that decision.
I stand by my insistence that executive decision-making really focuses on the standard 2% deviation. If the resources, people, processes, and training are in place 98% of stuff happens. Executive talent manages five years out and addresses only that 2% of current issues.
I have seen inspired executive action in many ways but three are captured in HBS Cases:
1. PepsiCo Hypodermic Hoax (USA)
2. PepsiCo Lottery Hoax (Philippines)
3. PepsiCo Response to Jack-in-the-Box Tainted Meat Deaths (USA)
You are correct - bad stuff happens. Executive talent earns its paycheck on how they manage crises.
And if you read these case studies you will understand how inspired and effective leadership addresses threats to the enterprise. Nothing Marquette did in either the O'Brien matter or this McAdams mess inspires confidence.
-
I stand by my insistence that executive decision-making really focuses on the standard 2% deviation. If the resources, people, processes, and training are in place 98% of stuff happens. Executive talent manages five years out and addresses only that 2% of current issues.
I have seen inspired executive action in many ways but three are captured in HBS Cases:
1. PepsiCo Hypodermic Hoax (USA)
2. PepsiCo Lottery Hoax (Philippines)
3. PepsiCo Response to Jack-in-the-Box Tainted Meat Deaths (USA)
You are correct - bad stuff happens. Executive talent earns its paycheck on how they manage crises.
And if you read these case studies you will understand how inspired and effective leadership addresses threats to the enterprise. Nothing Marquette did in either the O'Brien matter or this McAdams mess inspires confidence.
Fair, but in all 3 of those HBS cases the leadership was in place from start to finish. Certainly the O'Brien case predated Lovell and the majority of the McAdams case predates him as well. He is cleaning up a mess that existed previously and managing some inherent issues that have always been at MU and need to be resolved. You don't clean up a mess overnight nor resolve cultural and organizational issues. Keep in mind, when Lovell came in, he had to hire an AD, a leader for MU's lead "product" (men's basketball), a provost, deans for engineering and b-school not to mention whatever else was going on behind the scenes we're only partially privy to. To expect someone to have come in and handled it any better is probably unrealistic.
You are seeming to hold all the messes at MU for the last 8 years to Lovell's record which is not appropriate. I firmly believe Lovell will be a stead handed executive going forward, and nothing I've seen so far would lead me to believe otherwise. We disagree, so we'll see who's right 5 years out.
-
If this is the case, and I have no reason to doubt you, it is despicable that members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court "can't wait" to get this case and have already pre-determined the outcome before hearing any of the particulars simply, if true.
Counsel often feels they are right in their case, while the other side feels the same about theirs. That's why we have court proceedings. Now, I have no doubt MU's outside counsel feels the risk is limited, whether they are right or not is another story altogether. The world is littered with examples where an institution's General Counsel or outside counsel thought risk was small, only to get hammered. Of course the opposite is true as well.
I thought Jonathon Turley's article on this whole thing was rather interesting, and he's a social liberal, but also a "rule of law" guy. His article is worth a read. My conclusion is that he doesn't know which way things would go, and that tells me that the risk certainly isn't small....but that is ultimately up to someone willing to take on the risk or decide how much risk is acceptable.
-
Fair, but in all 3 of those HBS cases the leadership was in place from start to finish. Certainly the O'Brien case predated Lovell and the majority of the McAdams case predates him as well. He is cleaning up a mess that existed previously and managing some inherent issues that have always been at MU and need to be resolved. You don't clean up a mess overnight nor resolve cultural and organizational issues. Keep in mind, when Lovell came in, he had to hire an AD, a leader for MU's lead "product" (men's basketball), a provost, deans for engineering and b-school not to mention whatever else was going on behind the scenes we're only partially privy to. To expect someone to have come in and handled it any better is probably unrealistic.
You are seeming to hold all the messes at MU for the last 8 years to Lovell's record which is not appropriate. I firmly believe Lovell will be a stead handed executive going forward, and nothing I've seen so far would lead me to believe otherwise. We disagree, so we'll see who's right 5 years out.
I am not singling out Lovell as I am aware of the chronology.
As for the PepsiCo cases I strongly urge you to read them in order to understand my point.
Also, another superb case study on leadership taught at HBS is "Twelve O'Clock High". Watch the movie then think about leadership principles and how they are applied most effectively.
I recently met with Robin Chase of ZipCar and she recommended reading a case study she wrote up for Sloan (her alma mater). It is an excellent articulation of how she addressed a major structural issue with her incipient business through creativity, poise, and acumen.
If you read how successful leaders have addressed threats to the enterprise then contrast that with Marquette's tragic blunders you will shake your head.
-
If this is the case, and I have no reason to doubt you, it is despicable that members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court "can't wait" to get this case and have already pre-determined the outcome before hearing any of the particulars simply, if true.
Well, most high courts look forward to getting cases that are important since many are very "dry" and technical. BTW, both conservative and liberal members of the court said they look forward to tackling this if/when it gets to them.
And just look at the US Supreme Court. When the gay marriage case got there, the result was pre-ordained. None of the arguments or briefs mattered. Kennedy's written decision was unprofessional in the extreme (not the decision but his reaction), patting himself on the back and celebrating the outcome. He acted more like a politician and not a Justice.
-
I know MU is most often represented by Foley and Lardner but I'm not 100% certain they are handling this specific matter. They were my top choice 'go to' guys over a 30 year banking career. Outstanding albeit expensive at a price point no different than the big houses in Chicago. BTW, I'm told that the original 'decency' communication was drafted entirely by outside counsel with MU's input.
One factor that could turn out to be very important in the legal battle was Rebecca Bradley defeating Joanne Kloppenburg for the WI Supreme Court seat. When this all began, Patrick Crooks (before he passed away) held the seat and he often sided with the liberal wing of the court and was getting David Prosser to come along occasionally, as well. MU could have seriously thought it had a shot with that group.
Now you put Rebecca Bradley there, and the composition is much different. You have two liberal votes where Ann Walsh Bradley will follow whatever Shirley Abrahamson does, but now there is a solid block of four conservative justices. And Rebecca Bradley is big on "freedom of speech" issues. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why McAdams is now very confident in his chances.
-
"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why McAdams is now very confident in his chances."
shirley, i mean surely you meant surgeon ;D
-
I know MU is most often represented by Foley and Lardner but I'm not 100% certain they are handling this specific matter. They were my top choice 'go to' guys over a 30 year banking career. Outstanding albeit expensive at a price point no different than the big houses in Chicago. BTW, I'm told that the original 'decency' communication was drafted entirely by outside counsel with MU's input.
I don't believe Marquette typically uses Foley for litigation matters; I think it is usually Whyte Hirschboek.
-
I don't believe Marquette typically uses Foley for litigation matters; I think it is usually Whyte Hirschboek.
Certainly possible. Thanks. Another outstanding firm.
-
I was under the impression that Gass Weber & Mullins was handling this dispute for Marquette. Specifically Ralph Weber.
-
I heard that Hamlin Hamlin & McGill were brought in to handle this case specifically. Howard Hamlin and Chuck McGill are tag teaming it for MU, although Kim Wexler is assisting on doc review.
McAdams is being represented by Davis & Main.
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/breakingbad/images/d/d5/Hmm.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/250?cb=20150224065120)
-
I was under the impression that Gass Weber & Mullins was handling this dispute for Marquette. Specifically Ralph Weber.
Does Marquette have mutaman warming up in the bullpen to bring some of that $500 an hour heat?
A little chin music from the mute and John McAdams goes down.
-
After reading through all the recent comments, I again point out that Lovell's primary job responsibility is to raise money for the school. That is what college Presidents do. All other activities are in furtherance of that objective.
Moving this into litigation costs the school money and alienates guys with the 8-9 figure resources who can help Marquette in the future.
I would drop the apology condition, and deal with the push back from the faculty in some other way.
A court battle ensures that MU is a loser either monetarily or in the court of public opinion. This is not the case to take that stand. We have too good of an institution to amortize our goodwill on this stuff.
-
I was under the impression that Gass Weber & Mullins was handling this dispute for Marquette. Specifically Ralph Weber.
Ralph's a great guy. Truly respect him...his father was one of my favorite professors at Marquette. That being said, I will not be sad to see MU lose this.
I remember when Ralph was with Kravit, Gass and Weber....a long time ago.
-
After reading through all the recent comments, I again point out that Lovell's primary job responsibility is to raise money for the school. That is what college Presidents do. All other activities are in furtherance of that objective.
Moving this into litigation costs the school money and alienates guys with the 8-9 figure resources who can help Marquette in the future.
I would drop the apology condition, and deal with the push back from the faculty in some other way.
A court battle ensures that MU is a loser either monetarily or in the court of public opinion. This is not the case to take that stand. We have too good of an institution to amortize our goodwill on this stuff.
Was talking with a Prof at MU yesterday and asked him what he thought of Lovell (he knows him a bit personally...both are runners). He said he came across as very organized, structured and deliberate, which is why his apology demand and twitter rant came as such a surprise to many of the faculty. They all realized that it would just escalate the situation, which is what happened. The suspension was viewed as a fair compromise and the apology was a "poison pill" and now everyone is just waiting for the legal proceedings to begin.
An interesting thing he said is that there is now a lot of conversation on campus among Profs about the issues of freedom of speech and tenure and what can/cannot be said and in what venue (ex.blog).
-
his apology demand and twitter rant came as such a surprise to many of the faculty.
An interesting thing he said is that there is now a lot of conversation on campus among Profs about the issues of freedom of speech and tenure and what can/cannot be said and in what venue (ex.blog).
Go figure. You throw gasoline on embers and you get...a fire.
As I have said, the GE company will not take adverse action against an employee for speaking in public unless it violates trade secrets, etc...
I am not saying Marquette should not have taken action. I am saying be smart about it.
Gifted leadership knows what the levers of power are and, more to the point, knows how to wield them effectively.
-
"An interesting thing he said is that there is now a lot of conversation on campus among Profs about the issues of freedom of speech and tenure and what can/cannot be said and in what venue (ex.blog)."
this company's been deluged with orders from MU faculty
http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/category/counter+surveillance/best+counter+surveillance+equipment.do
-
An interesting thing he said is that there is now a lot of conversation on campus among Profs about the issues of freedom of speech and tenure and what can/cannot be said and in what venue (ex.blog).
I am sure it is really confusing.
Is this issue about freedom of speech or academic freedom?
No, this issue is about the professor’s conduct toward a graduate student. Dr. McAdams has been blogging for more than a decade, publishing approximately 3,000 posts, and the university administration has never disciplined him. He has the right to talk about controversial topics on his blog, and to disagree with and debate Marquette-related positions freely. Where Dr. McAdams crossed the line is when he launched a personal attack against a student, subjecting her to threats and hateful messages. Dr. McAdams continues to use the student’s name on his blog, even recently identifying where she is currently studying, leading to more hostile and threatening messages.
-
This is from the guy heading up McAdams' legal team, so I'm well aware of the slant. But if this is true, Lovell better issue another call for decency and punish Dr. Snow.
"The student complained to Dr. Susanne Foster in the College of Arts & Sciences, and was sent to the Philosophy Department where he spoke with then-chair Dr. Nancy Snow and Dr. Sebastian Luft. Neither Dr. Snow nor Dr. Luft took any action on behalf of the student. In fact, Dr. Snow referred to him as an “insolent little twerp” in a communication with the College of Arts & Sciences."
http://www.rightwisconsin.com/opinion/perspectives/marquettes-double-standard-for-the-treatment-of-students
-
But if this is true, Lovell better issue another call for decency and punish Dr. Snow.
If this is true, and that is a big if, Mike Lovell ought to look for a teaching job somewhere.
Let's see how this plays out but McAdams' legal team raises some troubling questions.
I can't fathom how stunningly bad Marquette projects itself in the public eye.
-
"In fact, Dr. Snow referred to him as an “insolent little twerp” in a communication with the College of Arts & Sciences."
sure sounds like they circled the wagons against the student-student, distinguishing him from the student-teacher-student. abbate represented one of them in this instance, but not on paper. huh? see, MU conveniently uses the "student" title when referring to mcadams interaction with abbate, but treat her as one of their own(teacher-student) when addressing the situation/interaction with, let's just say, the "real student"
dr. snow's reference to the "real student" as an "insolent little twerp" is a personal reaction/interpretation interjected into the mix. it will be very interesting how dr. lovell addresses this as part of the big picture as it seems like he has got "women in stereo" going on. i wonder who wears the pants or panties at home
this should have been nipped in the bud. now, any action on dr. snow's opinion of the student would and should ring hollow and properly be viewed as an arse covering. you know, one of those-as you all know this has been an emotional time for us at MU and sometimes words....speeches followed by a faux apology by dr. snow and life's good again-ayn'al?
-
These "Inside Baseball" insights cast Marquette in an exceedingly terrible light. The actions and behaviors of Nancy Snow and James South are unconscionable. To think they are leaders in an enterprise committed to free and open dialogue is disturbing.
I will watch closely to see how the University handles this situation but my expectations are low.
McAdams is suing and, frankly, based on these details, I hope the man hammers all of those responsible for creating a toxic atmosphere within a University I love more than any other.
-
This is from the guy heading up McAdams' legal team, so I'm well aware of the slant. But if this is true, Lovell better issue another call for decency and punish Dr. Snow.
"The student complained to Dr. Susanne Foster in the College of Arts & Sciences, and was sent to the Philosophy Department where he spoke with then-chair Dr. Nancy Snow and Dr. Sebastian Luft. Neither Dr. Snow nor Dr. Luft took any action on behalf of the student. In fact, Dr. Snow referred to him as an “insolent little twerp” in a communication with the College of Arts & Sciences."
http://www.rightwisconsin.com/opinion/perspectives/marquettes-double-standard-for-the-treatment-of-students
LOL
The hypocrisy continues....he's a student after all....but in this case will MU come to his aid? Get on that twitter Mike!!
-
This is from the guy heading up McAdams' legal team, so I'm well aware of the slant. But if this is true, Lovell better issue another call for decency and punish Dr. Snow.
Nancy Snow is no longer at Marquette so he can't punish her. She moved to the University of Oklahoma last year.
EDIT: South should lose his associate dean position.
-
Nancy Snow is no longer at Marquette so he can't punish her. She moved to the University of Oklahoma last year.
Correct, but doesn't take away the hypocrisy in how MU chose to handle this student's concerns vs Student Teacher concerns.
Dr. South, recording the conversation without consent....remember the dust up here when the real student did that?
I can't wait for the trial.
-
Correct, but doesn't take away the hypocrisy in how MU chose to handle this student's concerns vs Student Teacher concerns.
Dr. South, recording the conversation without consent....remember the dust up here when the real student did that?
I can't wait for the trial.
Right I had just edited my comment that South should lose his assistant dean position and should apologize to the student.
But none of this excuses anything with regard to McAdams. Hope Lovell stays the course so keefe can continue his self-hatred of the "University loves more than any other." (Editorial comment: LOL)
-
Get on that twitter Mike!!
Thank you. Now chick can focus her venom on you!
-
I can't wait for the trial.
Me too.
Even if Marquette loses, they stood for what's right. I applaud that.
-
Right I had just edited my comment that South should lose his assistant dean position and should apologize to the student.
But none of this excuses anything with regard to McAdams. Hope Lovell stays the course so keefe can continue his self-hatred of the "University loves more than any other." (Editorial comment: LOL)
You confuse "hatred" with extreme disappointment. There is a profound difference.
And as The Bail Bondsman has said, I am waiting for Mike to grab a keyboard and provide the world with a pithy 140 character bon mot which puts McAdams in his place.
The real issue here isn't John McAdams. It is how the leadership of Marquette University not just mismanaged this matter but the excruciatingly awful decisions made by administrators that caused it to spiral out of control in the first place.
As I said, you are satisfied with Mike Lovell's stewardship in this matter and I am not.
Some people prefer Dom Perignon while others crave the bite of a well crafted Old Milwaukee.
-
I know. If Marquette could only be known as "the Zipcar of higher education." All would be good.
-
I know. If Marquette could only be known as "the Zipcar of higher education." All would be good.
You can mock Robin Chase all you want but she is a gifted thinker and deft leader of people.
I have pointed you to two of her works that will illustrate how she has successfully managed crises in order to provide insight but you have chosen to not avail yourself of her experience and wisdom. Frankly, for one who presumes a position of intellectual authority I would expect a keener sense of curiosity and openness instead of the signature dismissive hubris you so often resort to when reason and logic confound you.
Marquette has mishandled the McAdams matter and it will probably pay a stiff penalty for that in court. I am disappointed that this was not handled more effectively.
-
You can mock Robin Chase all you want but she is a gifted thinker and deft leader of people.
I have pointed you to two of her works that will illustrate how she has successfully managed crises in order to provide insight but you have chosen to not avail yourself of her experience and wisdom. Frankly, for one who presumes a position of intellectual authority I would expect a keener sense of curiosity and openness instead of the signature dismissive hubris you so often resort to when reason and logic confound you.
Marquette has mishandled the McAdams matter and it will probably pay a stiff penalty for that in court. I am disappointed that this was not handled more effectively.
Honestly I know nothing about Robin Chase or Zipcar. I only keep bringing it up to get you fired up.
-
Honestly I know nothing about Robin Chase or Zipcar. I only keep bringing it up to get you fired up.
I can assure you that you exercise no influence over my life.
We live in different worlds, Sultan.
-
I can assure you that you exercise no influence over my life.
Your actions speak otherwise. It's hilarious.
-
Me too.
Even if Marquette loses, they stood for what's right. I applaud that.
In one case, and failed miserably in another.
-
Me too.
Even if Marquette loses, they stood for what's right. I applaud that.
You mean they stood for what is right (in your opinion) in one situation, but did not in the other one. Maybe a one hand clap?
-
You mean they stood for what is right (in your opinion) in one situation, but did not in the other one. Maybe a one hand clap?
I have said that I think the Associate Dean should lose his job. We will see how that goes. If he doesn't, I will be upset at them.
But I support them with regards to McAdams.
-
How is the enrollment year-to-year for McAdams's classes?
-
You can mock Robin Chase all you want but she is a gifted thinker and deft leader of people.
I have pointed you to two of her works that will illustrate how she has successfully managed crises in order to provide insight but you have chosen to not avail yourself of her experience and wisdom. Frankly, for one who presumes a position of intellectual authority I would expect a keener sense of curiosity and openness instead of the signature dismissive hubris you so often resort to when reason and logic confound you.
Marquette has mishandled the McAdams matter and it will probably pay a stiff penalty for that in court. I am disappointed that this was not handled more effectively.
I agree with this analysis.
-
I agree with this analysis.
i love and appreciate the profundity of the statement.
-
Word is out that David Prosser is retiring from the WI Supreme Court, and I would bet the next appointment will be more conservative, so MU's job winning there just got more difficult.
-
Word is out that David Prosser is retiring from the WI Supreme Court, and I would bet the next appointment will be more conservative, so MU's job winning there just got more difficult.
can they get anymore conservative? i mean, i'm not complaining, just wondering
-
can they get anymore conservative? i mean, i'm not complaining, just wondering
Actually, Prosser had started to side with Ann Walsh Bradley and Shirley Abrahamson a bit and was not seen as a "reliable" conservative vote anymore.
-
McAdams and Rick Essenberg are holding a press conference on Monday.
-
Actually, Prosser had started to side with Ann Walsh Bradley and Shirley Abrahamson a bit and was not seen as a "reliable" conservative vote anymore.
really? you mean he was seeing eye to eye with the one he tried to choke out? i'm not doubting you, just shocked i guess. and abrahamson is one of the most divisive justices ever
-
really? you mean he was seeing eye to eye with the one he tried to choke out? i'm not doubting you, just shocked i guess. and abrahamson is one of the most divisive justices ever
Have you ever met Prosser? He's too frail to choke out a 5 yr old. That whole incident was started by Ann Walsh Bradley. If you told the five conservatives on the court they could get rid of either Abrahamson or Walsh Bradley, they would all choose Ann. She's the biggest cause of any discord on the court. Always looking to try and get the others in trouble and always leaking to the media. Just an awful, awful woman.
And, yeah, he was so gun-shy about any conflict that he was beginning to bend over backwards to see their POV.
BTW, he didn't just decide to retire. He had planned to stay another year or two before calling it quits, but was strongly advised to get out now by some influential people in Madison.
-
Channel 6 will be playing the recording that started this controversy on the 9pm news tonight.
-
The court battle is underway.
McAdams sues Marquette University for Breach of Contract...
http://www.will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016-05-02-File-Stamped-SC-with-Exhibits.pdf
-
Marquette fumbles another one...
-
not only is MU going to be parting with some cash for a settlement and for attorney fees. but all the delicious PR that goes with it. it will be interesting to see how the media will cover this. vicki mckenna just had him on WISN
-
Marquette fumbles another one...
Not to be drawn back into this but by doing exactly what? This lawsuit was a 100% certainty. I skimmed the Complaint. Exactly what I'd expect.
-
For your reading pleasure. Publicly released today by the university.
https://news.marquette.edu/statement-from-marquette-university-on-associate-professor-john-mcadams/
http://marquette.edu/leadership/documents/20160118-MUFHC-Final-Report-Contested-Dismissal-Dr-John-C-McAdams.pdf
-
For your reading pleasure. Publicly released today by the university.
https://news.marquette.edu/statement-from-marquette-university-on-associate-professor-john-mcadams/
http://marquette.edu/leadership/documents/20160118-MUFHC-Final-Report-Contested-Dismissal-Dr-John-C-McAdams.pdf
I'm furious Marquette decided to communicate about this over this new-fangled interweb. Don't they know the only way these statements should be published is by Town Crier
(http://www.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/201542/rs_1024x759-150502065259-1024-Town-Crier-Kate-Middleton-Prince-William-Royal-Baby-Birth-Announcement-JR-50215.jpg)
-
The court battle is underway.
McAdams sues Marquette University for Breach of Contract...
http://www.will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016-05-02-File-Stamped-SC-with-Exhibits.pdf
Yep.
Idk about that.
It sounds like a run-of-the-mill breach of contract case (same as Salaita's UIUC case).
This is an open and shut case. MU is going to lose/settle and lose/settle bad--as they should. MU emphasizes her status as a graduate student to gain PR points. But McAdams will note that she was instructor of record. As such, he was criticizing a peer. I'm confident that the court will agree with him.
Then I question myself: Why would MU walk into a battle that they know they will lose?
Here are two hypotheses.
1) It's possible that MU is doing the whole song and dance solely for PR points: 'Wow I'm so proud of MU for standing up for its students! Go MU! Ra-ra-ra way to stand up to bullies!!'. This PR campaign, though, comes at the expense of free-speech PR points: 'Wow I'm disappointed that MU didn't stand up for free speech/academic freedom'. Which of these two do you think potential MU-parents care more about? Let me put it differently. Which PR take do you think tuition-paying parents and the majority of alums would take? Exactly.
2) Many people at MU genuinely dislike McAdams, perhaps both personally and professionally. The settlement and legal fees are simply the cost of getting rid of a nuisance.
-
But McAdams will note that she was instructor of record. As such, he was criticizing a peer.
Your first sentence may be correct. But the leap you take in the conclusion could not be further.
-
don't know how many read his blog and hadn't even heard of it before. but from emails I have been getting from alumni of various years, there are lot who are really upset over the student's treatment and subsequent handling. the forward email numbers are significant and not good for Mu's alumni relations
-
This is an open and shut case. MU is going to lose/settle and lose/settle bad--as they should. MU emphasizes her status as a graduate student to gain PR points. But McAdams will note that she was instructor of record. As such, he was criticizing a peer. I'm confident that the court will agree with him.
Any court that thinks that a tenured professor is a "peer" of a graduate student are morons. Which means I wouldn't put it past this batch of WI Supreme Court Justices....
-
Any court that thinks that a tenured professor is a "peer" of a graduate student are morons. Which means I wouldn't put it past this batch of WI Supreme Court Justices....
Nice jab at the citizens of Wisconsin. how many ways do you interpret the constitution? Living and breathing there heyn'a?
I understand MU likes to call its grad student teachers students, but let's be honest here and stop splitting of hairs. She is teaching a class. Let's just put this one down as a very expensive teaching moment. Maybe it just ain't her calling. Like him or not, Mccadams hasn't been teaching for 30 years or so by accident
-
Graduate students are not "peers" of faculty members. Period. It is an absurd comparison.
I am not saying she was a good teacher. In fact I think she might not be. But that doesn't change the fact that she is in no way, shape or form a peer of a professor.
-
Graduate students are not "peers" of faculty members. Period. It is an absurd comparison.
I am not saying she was a good teacher. In fact I think she might not be. But that doesn't change the fact that she is in no way, shape or form a peer of a professor.
I have a feeling that the majority of people who understand this distinction have spent time doing postgrad work and those who do not never went beyond a bachelor's degree.
I guess from an undergrad perspective, it is easy to see blurred lines. But believe me, a grad student instructor could be nothing furthere from a tenured professor. The only thing that they have in common is that they piss in the same bathrooms.
-
I have a feeling that the majority of people who understand this distinction have spent time doing postgrad work and those who do not never went beyond a bachelor's degree.
I guess from an undergrad perspective, it is easy to see blurred lines. But believe me, a grad student instructor could be nothing furthere from a tenured professor. The only thing that they have in common is that they piss in the same bathrooms.
Except for the fact that they both hand out grades on behalf of the University... a grad instructor is closer to a professor in this scenario than a student.
-
For your reading pleasure. Publicly released today by the university.
https://news.marquette.edu/statement-from-marquette-university-on-associate-professor-john-mcadams/
http://marquette.edu/leadership/documents/20160118-MUFHC-Final-Report-Contested-Dismissal-Dr-John-C-McAdams.pdf
Someone needs to run over to the legal department and tell them to shut the unnatural carnal knowledge up. There is no need for them to continually be putting out statements like these.
I don't know how the university even arguably defends this lawsuit in good faith - whatever the University's motivations, it is obviously in breach of its contract with McAdams.
-
Not to be drawn back into this but by doing exactly what? This lawsuit was a 100% certainty. I skimmed the Complaint. Exactly what I'd expect.
Here is the bottom line: Marquette administrators, acting on behalf of the University, acted improperly in disciplining McAdams. They used their office and its power to punish a man without regard for process or procedure.
John McAdams exercised poor judgment. Marquette University officials acted like bullies. I shake my head at the former. I am outraged by the latter.
I hate those who abuse their authority, however limited. Marquette knew early on that those entrusted to be fair, impartial and equitable used their positions to extract vengeance against a man they simply did not like.
-
Except for the fact that they both hand out grades on behalf of the University... a grad instructor is closer to a professor in this scenario than a student.
I use a computer at work.
Nuclear physicists uses computers at work.
HEY I'M JUST LIKE A NUCLEAR PHYSICIST!!!!
-
Here is the bottom line: Marquette administrators, acting on behalf of the University, acted improperly in disciplining McAdams. They used their office and its power to punish a man without regard for process or procedure.
John McAdams exercised poor judgment. Marquette University officials acted like bullies. I shake my head at the former. I am outraged by the latter.
I hate those who abuse their authority, however limited. Marquette knew early on that those entrusted to be fair, impartial and equitable used their positions to extract vengeance against a man they simply did not like.
I think where Marquette has gotten itself into trouble is with their "middle management" like the department chairs and the A&S Dean. They saw an opportunity to "take out" a very significant thorn in their side and vastly overreached in the process. I mean they suspended McAdams but then tried to argue they didn't suspend him because he was being paid even though he wasn't even allowed on campus without written permission.
The question is, how do you resolve this at this point, with the minimal impact on Marquette? You can't reinstate McAdams, his behavior and actions were deplorable....but that in no way justifies the middle management folks going after him with such zeal and their actions probably make MU legally exposed to having to pay McAdams for mistreatment. This is just ugly, and I think MU is just bunkering trying to fight off McAdams as best they can and hope it goes away at some point.
-
I think where Marquette has gotten itself into trouble is with their "middle management" like the department chairs and the A&S Dean. They saw an opportunity to "take out" a very significant thorn in their side and vastly overreached in the process. I mean they suspended McAdams but then tried to argue they didn't suspend him because he was being paid even though he wasn't even allowed on campus without written permission.
The question is, how do you resolve this at this point, with the minimal impact on Marquette? You can't reinstate McAdams, his behavior and actions were deplorable....but that in no way justifies the middle management folks going after him with such zeal and their actions probably make MU legally exposed to having to pay McAdams for mistreatment. This is just ugly, and I think MU is just bunkering trying to fight off McAdams as best they can and hope it goes away at some point.
I basically agree with this. And I have seen this in higher education for years. Department chairs, assistant deans, even deans are elevated into positions with a lack of management skills and training that gets them in trouble in small and large ways.
As I said before, James South, the lying assistant dean should be removed from his position. I cannot comprehend why anyone while dealing with a personal matter would be nothing but above board and honest.
That being said, Marquette went through the process it requires. He was going to be reinstated. All he had to do was apologize to Abatte who he treated shabbily. And he wouldn't.
-
I basically agree with this. And I have seen this in higher education for years. Department chairs, assistant deans, even deans are elevated into positions with a lack of management skills and training that gets them in trouble in small and large ways.
As I said before, James South, the lying assistant dean should be removed from his position. I cannot comprehend why anyone while dealing with a personal matter would be nothing but above board and honest.
I hope long term that Snow, South, and Holz have punishments for the way they acted in this whole mess and the position they put the university in. Having said that, I think we will have to wait as MU can't do anything now as it would just be fodder for the legal fight that's coming. Once it's resolved I'd like to see both Snow and South stripped of being department chair/assistant dean. If they are not punished in some way I think that would be a very significant disappointment.
That being said, Marquette went through the process it requires. He was going to be reinstated. All he had to do was apologize to Abatte who he treated shabbily. And he wouldn't.
You are assuming you are dealing with a rational, reasonable person that wants a peaceful resolution. McAdams is a cad and he wanted this fight, so MU better have made a calculated decision to get into that fight by asking him to apologize...once they asked that it was destined to go to court.
-
I use a computer at work.
Nuclear physicists uses computers at work.
HEY I'M JUST LIKE A NUCLEAR PHYSICIST!!!!
Very persuasive straw man... and you must recognize that it works equally well the opposite direction: undergrads attend class; grad instructors attend class; therefore grad instructors must be treated as students no matter if they are teaching the class.
Bottom line is that I don't think a jury is going to buy that the person preparing the syllabus, grading exams, and instructing students was being critiqued by McAdams in her role as student.
-
I hope long term that Snow, South, and Holz have punishments for the way they acted in this whole mess and the position they put the university in. Having said that, I think we will have to wait as MU can't do anything now as it would just be fodder for the legal fight that's coming. Once it's resolved I'd like to see both Snow and South stripped of being department chair/assistant dean. If they are not punished in some way I think that would be a very significant disappointment.
Snow has left Marquette and is at the University of Oklahoma, but yeah. I agree with this.
You are assuming you are dealing with a rational, reasonable person that wants a peaceful resolution. McAdams is a cad and he wanted this fight, so MU better have made a calculated decision to get into that fight by asking him to apologize...once they asked that it was destined to go to court.
Yeah I hope Marquette had a clear understanding of where this was going to lead, and that they were counselled appropriately.
-
Very persuasive straw man... and you must recognize that it works equally well the opposite direction: undergrads attend class; grad instructors attend class; therefore grad instructors must be treated as students no matter if they are teaching the class.
Bottom line is that I don't think a jury is going to buy that the person preparing the syllabus, grading exams, and instructing students was being critiqued by McAdams in her role as student.
You do know that graduate programs in the humanities are training programs for academic teaching, right? So yeah, you are learning to teach, so you have teaching experience, but you are still a student. It is like an internship, or a student teaching program.
Student first. Instructor second. McAdams bullied a student.
-
I've enrolled the help of MS Paint to help you understand.
The hierarchy demonstrates the power dynamic in this scenario.
The size of the oval indicates the relative power each player has. Get it?
-
I have a feeling that the majority of people who understand this distinction have spent time doing postgrad work and those who do not never went beyond a bachelor's degree.
I guess from an undergrad perspective, it is easy to see blurred lines. But believe me, a grad student instructor could be nothing furthere from a tenured professor. The only thing that they have in common is that they piss in the same bathrooms.
I was a TA at Marquette and at the time I was there, there were two types of TAs.
I was the standard TA who helped out a professor with his class. I worked for him and developed all of my lesson planning within his framework and was his extension to that classroom.
The other kind of TA, which is the type in the McAdams scenario, is an advanced PhD student who gets their own class to develop from scratch and have total responsibility for. It is a significant opportunity for those seeking to go into academia.
Since that TA had total control of her class, MU's claim that she is a student in this situation isn't very strong. She was operating as an instructor and was a person of authority in the situation.
What would have nipped this whole incident in the bud, is if Nancy Snow and the Philo department had handled the issue at their level.
...and one can think that McAdams' response was over the top, but the reason it got to that level was that an entire department failed to do its job. Marquette's effort would be better spent cleaning up the latter mess, rather than the former.
-
What would have nipped this whole incident in the bud, is if Nancy Snow and the Philo department had handled the issue at their level.
This whole situation is a bunch of employees and students behaving terribly. MU didn't put this in the public domain but they have decided to take a stand (hopefully calculated).
I hope this is being used to make multiple points on how Lovell wants MU managed in the future. Personally, I think MU's actions, particularly recently, are calculated. If a bunch of message board jockey's can see where the puck is going on this one, I am going to assume MU's high powered law firm has the same if not better view of things.
Rather than judge now on whether it is 'smart' or 'terrible', I am going to wait to see how it ends and what changes down the road.
-
Ih and have total responsibility for. It is a significant opportunity for those seeking to go into academia.
Since that TA had total control of her class, MU's claim that she is a student in this situation isn't very strong. She was operating as an instructor and was a person of authority in the situation.
Not according to the clear distinctions of the Marquette Code of Conduct.
But let's entertain your position for a moment. According to the investigation document, McAdams has a history of bullying and intimidating lower-ranked teachers at MU whose opinions differ from his. Are they not entitled to academic freedom as well? Or does tenure give you carte blanche to express your views however you see fit, even to the detriment of others who disagree with you?
-
I was a TA at Marquette and at the time I was there, there were two types of TAs.
I was the standard TA who helped out a professor with his class. I worked for him and developed all of my lesson planning within his framework and was his extension to that classroom.
The other kind of TA, which is the type in the McAdams scenario, is an advanced PhD student who gets their own class to develop from scratch and have total responsibility for. It is a significant opportunity for those seeking to go into academia.
Is this "two types of TAs" scenario actually laid out in University policy?
So for instance, are they compensated differently? Do they have different position descriptions? Or is all of this informal and still left up to the department.
-
I was a TA at Marquette and at the time I was there, there were two types of TAs.
I was the standard TA who helped out a professor with his class. I worked for him and developed all of my lesson planning within his framework and was his extension to that classroom.
The other kind of TA, which is the type in the McAdams scenario, is an advanced PhD student who gets their own class to develop from scratch and have total responsibility for. It is a significant opportunity for those seeking to go into academia.
Since that TA had total control of her class, MU's claim that she is a student in this situation isn't very strong. She was operating as an instructor and was a person of authority in the situation.
What would have nipped this whole incident in the bud, is if Nancy Snow and the Philo department had handled the issue at their level.
...and one can think that McAdams' response was over the top, but the reason it got to that level was that an entire department failed to do its job. Marquette's effort would be better spent cleaning up the latter mess, rather than the former.
This is outstanding insight. The only TA I had at Marquette was for that freshman English class we all had to take. There was no professor; the TA ran the course per some pro forma protocols established by the Department.
As you point out, Abbate designed and taught this course. She wasn't using a cookbook recipe.
For her to summarily dismiss the student's question in the manner she did is egregious. Perhaps she has no business being in a classroom.
-
Not according to the clear distinctions of the Marquette Code of Conduct.
But let's entertain your position for a moment. According to the investigation document, McAdams has a history of bullying and intimidating lower-ranked teachers at MU whose opinions differ from his. Are they not entitled to academic freedom as well? Or does tenure give you carte blanche to express your views however you see fit, even to the detriment of others who disagree with you?
Let's entertain your position for a moment: Wasn't John McAdams entitled to the protections of his contract when subjected to the harassment, bullying, and intimidation doled out by higher-ranked professors who had been entrusted with positions of authority by the University? Or does enshrinement as an administrator give one carte blanche to wield power arbitrarily, without regard to the established processes, especially to the detriment of those whom you simply do not like?
You can't have it both ways. As Fr Davitt stressed to us: ethical behavior is constant and universal and never ever situational.
-
Let's entertain your position for a moment: Wasn't John McAdams entitled to the protections of his contract when subjected to the harassment, bullying, and intimidation doled out by higher-ranked professors who had been entrusted with positions of authority by the University? Or does enshrinement as an administrator give one carte blanche to wield power arbitrarily, without regard to the established processes, especially to the detriment of those whom you simply do not like?
You can't have it both ways. As Fr Davitt stressed to us: ethical behavior is constant and universal and never ever situational.
Ethics is ALWAYS situational.
-
I think where Marquette has gotten itself into trouble is with their "middle management" like the department chairs and the A&S Dean. They saw an opportunity to "take out" a very significant thorn in their side and vastly overreached in the process. I mean they suspended McAdams but then tried to argue they didn't suspend him because he was being paid even though he wasn't even allowed on campus without written permission.
The question is, how do you resolve this at this point, with the minimal impact on Marquette? You can't reinstate McAdams, his behavior and actions were deplorable....but that in no way justifies the middle management folks going after him with such zeal and their actions probably make MU legally exposed to having to pay McAdams for mistreatment. This is just ugly, and I think MU is just bunkering trying to fight off McAdams as best they can and hope it goes away at some point.
I agree that the first echelon of authority caused the problem (and NOT McAdams, despite what people might think.)
But senior leadership had an obligation to resolve this situation. What has transpired is anything but a case study in effective crisis management.
The delicious irony in all of this is that the ones who created the mess - Snow, South, and Holz - are free to carry on when, in fact, they are the ones who should have been under the microscope.
McAdams exercised poor judgment. Snow, South, and Holz abused their authority and were even dishonest.
-
Ethics is ALWAYS situational.
Well, we will just have to disagree.
As Fr Davitt always said - the world is governed by certain absolutes and moral imperatives.
-
Ethics is ALWAYS situational.
This reminds me of a humorous wall scratch I read in the Marquette library:
Kubla Khan
Immanuel Kant
-
Well, we will just have to disagree.
As Fr Davitt always said - the world is governed by certain absolutes and moral imperatives.
Indeed. The application of these principles is entirely governed by the situation.
The entire field of Ethics can be boiled down to deciding how principles are translated into behavior, which again means inserting moral absolutes into the messy, grey, foggy realm of everyday life otherwise known as "the situation" that brings upon a given ethical dilemma. Life is a mess.
-
"Only the Sith deal in absolutes" - Obi Wan Kenobi
-
If anyone was curious of opinion outside the MU bubble ..
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4hkn7k/a_university_moved_to_fire_a_professor_after_he/
-
This reminds me of a humorous wall scratch I read in the Marquette library:
Kubla Khan
Immanuel Kant
That's fantastic.
-
If anyone was curious of opinion outside the MU bubble ..
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4hkn7k/a_university_moved_to_fire_a_professor_after_he/
LOL, most of those commenting are in the "liberal bubble" (check their previous posts, lol) and link to far left Dailynous, so they have a definite POV, too.
Reddit is a bunch of "bubbles" and people congregate in like minded circles.
Would be interesting to know how the calls/emails to the university break down in support of.
-
Did anyone else have Snow for any classes at MU?
I'm pretty sure I had her in the late 80's/early 90's and she was hippie-ish and out there a bit, but never seemed that strident or radical.
-
Did anyone else have Snow for any classes at MU?
I'm pretty sure I had her in the late 80's/early 90's and she was hippie-ish and out there a bit, but never seemed that strident or radical.
I had her for Theory of Ethics her first semester on campus. (Fall of 88 or 89). My recollection is the same as yours. Good, not great, professor.
-
Except for the fact that they both hand out grades on behalf of the University... a grad instructor is closer to a professor in this scenario than a student.
well put. and those grades carry a lot of weight. read GPA. could become the difference in a STUDENT's future-grad school, doctors, lawyers, post grad schools accepted into, how much money one could make
-
One of the things that struck me was how little McAdams is (was?) paid by Marquette. I think it was appox $77,000. This for a Harvard grad working for the same employer for almost half a century. Good Lord.
-
One of the things that struck me was how little McAdams is (was?) paid by Marquette. I think it was appox $77,000. This for a Harvard grad working for the same employer for almost half a century. Good Lord.
yeah, i saw that too...well no worrie$ now. his hard work and sticking to his guns is finally going to pay off, but not the way he intended i'm sure
-
yeah, i saw that too...well no worrie$ now. his hard work and sticking to his guns is finally going to pay off, but not the way he intended i'm sure
Supply and demand, my friend. There are hundreds and hundreds of underemployed History PhDs that would love to take his place.
Also, keep in mind that is for probably 6-9 hours per week of classroom time, with the summer off. And it's guaranteed lifetime employment unless you screw up really bad.
-
My guess at $77,000 that he is one of the higher paid humanities professors at Marquette. And he probably would be one of the lowest paid in the College of Engineering or College of Business.
EDIT: Just looked at the salary database where I work. Not a single tenured professor in the Arts & Sciences makes a six figure salary unless they have some administrative responsibilities. Every tenured professor in Business makes six figures with the exception of the Department of Economics.
If he teaches during the summer he gets an extra stipend for that as well.
-
One of the things that struck me was how little McAdams is (was?) paid by Marquette. I think it was appox $77,000. This for a Harvard grad working for the same employer for almost half a century. Good Lord.
Seems about right to me for tenured academia in the humanities.
Chick already mentioned the work schedule. Tenured profs do get really awesome benefits (free tuition for immediate family, use of all campus facilities, etc), Cadillac health care plans and a pension. But you aren't going to get rich in academia.
Keep in mind most people with tenure have published a few books along the way. McAdams has published two. I'm sure he's made something there. And the university gives you year-long paid sabbaticals to research and write pretty regularly.
You are also free to consult or do any other sort of side gig with all of the time and flexibility you have. For example, my dad was a professor of psychology at a UW school and did clinical work in his own practice for 20 hours a week. The university had no problem with this, and in fact encouraged it because it kept him sharp and current in the field.
One little clarification though...
Untenured employment is basically slave labor. To earn tenure, you generally have to put in 60+ hours a week at the university between teaching, grading and advising (course load is much heavier for untenured professors) for 4-6 years (on the low end, perhaps over a decade on the high end). You get paid a pittance (literally $30k-$40k a year) in the hopes that some day your hard work will pay off so you can get the flexibility, benefits, and security, if not amazing pay, of tenure.
In my opinion, it is an unsustrightble system that exploits those without tenure for the benefit of the few who have it.
-
My guess at $77,000 that he is one of the higher paid humanities professors at Marquette. And he probably would be one of the lowest paid in the College of Engineering or College of Business.
If he teaches during the summer he gets an extra stipend for that as well.
Yep. Universities have the upper hand when it comes to humanities professors because their alternate employment options are limited. Even math and science PhDs can get jobs with companies who need the expertise in their given field. Their are very few products developed these days that require advanced knowledge of Renaissance Art or British Literature.
Humanities PhDs can usually make more money teaching at the secondary school level if they get a teaching certificate. One could say that those who choose to teach at the university level are getting paid with prestige and the freedom to do research.
-
Untenured employment is basically slave labor. To earn tenure, you generally have to put in 60+ a week at the university between teaching, grading and advising (course load is much heavier for untenured professors) for 4-6 years (on the low end, perhaps over a decade on the high end). You get paid a pittance (literally $30k-$40k a year) in the hopes that some day your hard work will pay off so you can get the flexibility, benefits, and security, if not amazing pay, of tenure.
In my opinion, it is an unsustrightble system that exploits those without tenure for the benefit of the few who have it.
It's not slave labor if they are taking these jobs voluntarily and can leave whenever they want. No one is holding a gun to the heads of these people and forcing them to do the work. They knew the way this works.
Now, if they want to organize, more power to them. That is what is happening at the University of Illinois right now.
-
It's not slave labor if they are taking these jobs voluntarily and can leave whenever they want. No one is holding a gun to the heads of these people and forcing them to do the work. They knew the way this works.
Now, if they want to organize, more power to them. That is what is happening at the University of Illinois right now.
It is when you are sold of a bill goods about putting in your time to earn tenure and that never materializes.
Tenured prof gets paid $80k to teach 2 classes a semester. Is literally on campus 20 hours a week, with summers off and sabbaticals every handful of years. Is writing books in his spare time.
Untenured prof gets paid $30k to teach 5 classes a semester. Is on campus 60 hours a week. Is probably painting houses during the summer to make enough to feed his family.
Tenured prof has no incentive to ever retire. Can work this schedule until the day he dies.
How is this system sustrightble? How is it equitable?
Its not. But Boomers would rather suck the rapidly shrinking teat forever, no matter the consequences to future generations.
BTW this is NOT how it used to work. The exploitation of untenured staff is a relatively recent phenomenon, within the last 20 years. 35 years ago, my dad was hired right out of his PhD program on a tenure-track position and earned tenure after 3 years of putting in his time. That was standard at the time. He was in a secure position by the time he was 32. He could live a normal life and raise a family. This hardly ever happens anymore.
The entire model needs to be reevaluated.
One area where I do agree with you is that there are far too many humanities PhDs. Unfortunately, this is because lower-tier graduate programs view this as a revenue generator....5-6 years of tuition...that's huge. Only the top schools provide funding. Unfortunately, no one is telling these idealistic PhD students that if you weren't able to get full funding, you probably have no business being in a graduate program. These are the ones who wind up in 6 figure debt and can't get a real job. Universities need to admit significantly fewer students to PhD programs, especially if they are not providing funding. Unfortunately, there is no reason or incentive to do so. It is the same issue encountered at lower-tier law schools.
-
It is when you are sold of a bill goods about putting in your time to earn tenure and that never materializes.
Doesn't that happen in nearly every job? The hiring manager emphasizing the potential upside? If the practice of "being sold a bill of goods" is as common as you claim, why wouldn't anyone who took the job already be aware of it?
I think the issue is that they all think they will be the one that will get that tenured position, just like all the people who move to L.A. believing they will beat the odds and become a movie star.
-
Doesn't that happen in nearly every job? The hiring manager emphasizing the potential upside? If the practice of "being sold a bill of goods" is as common as you claim, why wouldn't anyone who took the job already be aware of it?
I think the issue is that they all think they will be the one that will get that tenured position, just like all the people who move to L.A. believing they will beat the odds and become a movie star.
The difference is people are being lied to about their odds of actually achieving it.
It would be like if a college basketball coach told a walk on he has a chance of securing a scholarship if he walks on for one year, knowing full well that will never happen.
-
Is there a go fund me legal war chest being built up for McAdams? I'll happily transition my Marquette donations to that cause.
-
The difference is people are being lied to about their odds of actually achieving it.
It would be like if a college basketball coach told a walk on he has a chance of securing a scholarship if he walks on for one year, knowing full well that will never happen.
Again, happens all the time in the business world. Nothing special about academia. It doesn't make it "slave labor." You can leave at any time.
-
The difference is people are being lied to about their odds of actually achieving it.
It would be like if a college basketball coach told a walk on he has a chance of securing a scholarship if he walks on for one year, knowing full well that will never happen.
I don't understand your example. There are preferred walk-ons that get that exact speech and they do get a scholarship for their final year. It happens, and happens quite frequently.
-
Supply and demand, my friend. There are hundreds and hundreds of underemployed History PhDs that would love to take his place.
Also, keep in mind that is for probably 6-9 hours per week of classroom time, with the summer off. And it's guaranteed lifetime employment unless you screw up really bad.
The war on teachers.....
-
Doesn't that happen in nearly every job? The hiring manager emphasizing the potential upside? If the practice of "being sold a bill of goods" is as common as you claim, why wouldn't anyone who took the job already be aware of it?
I think the issue is that they all think they will be the one that will get that tenured position, just like all the people who move to L.A. believing they will beat the odds and become a movie star.
+1
Jobs are about potential and reaching potential, but nothing is every guaranteed. Markets change, businesses change, bosses change, strategies change, etc.
-
Is there a go fund me legal war chest being built up for McAdams? I'll happily transition my Marquette donations to that cause.
Here's the group handling his case- http://www.will-law.org/donate/
-
Here's the group handling his case- http://www.will-law.org/donate/
Thanks
-
Here's the group handling his case- http://www.will-law.org/donate/
Is there a GoFundMe page for Cheryl Abbate? I understand that she lost 3 semesters of progress in getting her PhD because she had to transfer schools out of fear for her own safety.
-
I don't understand your example. There are preferred walk-ons that get that exact speech and they do get a scholarship for their final year. It happens, and happens quite frequently.
I'm not talking about those people.
-
Is there a GoFundMe page for Cheryl Abbate? I understand that she lost 3 semesters of progress in getting her PhD because she had to transfer schools out of fear for her own safety.
+1
Also, usually the people who talk the most about withholding their giving over some manufactured political outrage are the ones who give very little anyway. I'm sure MU will get by just fine without Chicos' giving.
I'm young and don't give much but I also don't act like it would be some monumental thing if I stopped.
-
Is there a GoFundMe page for Cheryl Abbate? I understand that she lost 3 semesters of progress in getting her PhD because she had to transfer schools out of fear for her own safety.
Quick googling says no. Maybe this will help you start one for her. https://www.gofundme.com/questions/
-
she had to transfer schools out of fear for her own safety.
I hope she doesn't soil herself crossing a busy street...
Good Lord.
-
I hope she doesn't soil herself crossing a busy street...
Good Lord.
That's no way to talk about a fellow service member.
-
That's no way to talk about a fellow service member.
I read her thesis on how the risk matrix for avoiding collateral damage in warfare violates the concept of just war.
She is neither a warrior nor a scholar. She is a shrill emotional voice who does not comprehend the choices that must be made in combat.
Frankly, her take on the ethics of warfighting is rubbish.
-
I read her thesis on how the risk matrix for avoiding collateral damage in warfare violates the concept of just war.
She is neither a warrior nor a scholar. She is a shrill emotional voice who does not comprehend the choices that must be made in combat.
Frankly, her take on the ethics of warfighting is rubbish.
So I take it that if someone mentioned your daughter's name in a public forum and said that someone should blow her brains out, you would just tell her to "man up".
-
It appears my daughter is going to be a TA this fall in an Occupational Therapy program. I have never been a fan of what McAdams did, but with this new development in my life, I can say in all honesty that if some grumpy old man does to my daughter what McAdams did to that poor girl, I would want him fired and I would contemplate suing him instead of him suing the school. And it would be very tempting to go medieval on his ass.
-
So I take it that if someone mentioned your daughter's name in a public forum and said that someone should blow her brains out, you would just tell her to "man up".
My daughter would not have said anything close to what Abbate said to that young man so your starting premise is not just off base but, in fact, ludicrous.
I am not aware of anything anonymous commentators wrote to or about Abbate but if that is what someone wrote it is wrong. But I can assure you, my daughter would dismiss it as meaningless ramblings of gutless cowards. And I can state unequivocally that she would never ever let such idiots dictate life decisions for her.
Her mother raised her to be fearless, resolute, and intrepid and she has lived her life accordingly. She has worked in the field in sub-Saharan Africa to bring clean water solutions to combat infant mortality and helped a former colleague of mine, Jeff Blander, to assist in the fight against HIV in the developing world.
She is working on her MPH at a leading center of academic excellence and will return to a prestigious foundation to continue supporting initiatives in Global Health. And she looks forward to resuming her work in the developing world where the dangers are many but the need is greatest and the rewards highest.
My daughter would never alter her life's path for anyone, much less internet bullies.
Cheryl Abbate let other people make life choices for her. That says far more about her than it does the clowns making absurd threats on a blog.
I have to believe that you would be disappointed if your daughter let bullies scare her into changing her life's path.
-
My daughter would not have said anything close to what Abbate said to that young man so your starting premise is not just off base but, in fact, ludicrous.
I am not aware of anything anonymous commentators wrote to or about Abbate but if that is what someone wrote it is wrong. But I can assure you, my daughter would dismiss it as meaningless ramblings of gutless cowards. And I can state unequivocally that she would never ever let such idiots dictate life decisions for her.
Her mother raised her to be fearless, resolute, and intrepid and she has lived her life accordingly. She has worked in the field in sub-Saharan Africa to bring clean water solutions to combat infant mortality and helped a former colleague of mine, Jeff Blander, to assist in the fight against HIV in the developing world.
She is working on her MPH at a leading center of academic excellence and will return to a prestigious foundation to continue supporting initiatives in Global Health. And she looks forward to resuming her work in the developing world where the dangers are many but the need is greatest and the rewards highest.
My daughter would never alter her life's path for anyone, much less internet bullies.
Cheryl Abbate let other people make life choices for her. That says far more about her than it does the clowns making absurd threats on a blog.
I have to believe that you would be disappointed if your daughter let bullies scare her into changing her life's path.
This is priceless. Just priceless.
-
It appears my daughter is going to be a TA this fall in an Occupational Therapy program. I have never been a fan of what McAdams did, but with this new development in my life, I can say in all honesty that if some grumpy old man does to my daughter what McAdams did to that poor girl, I would want him fired and I would contemplate suing him instead of him suing the school. And it would be very tempting to go medieval on his ass.
I'm sorry to inform you that your theoretical lawsuit against McAdams wouldn't have legal legs. There is a reason Abbate hasn't sued him.
-
I'm sorry to inform you that your theoretical lawsuit against McAdams wouldn't have legal legs. There is a reason Abbate hasn't sued him.
Are you sure she hasn't, or doesn't plan to?
-
This is priceless. Just priceless.
I agree with this analysis.
-
Is there a GoFundMe page for Cheryl Abbate? I understand that she lost 3 semesters of progress in getting her PhD because she had to transfer schools out of fear for her own safety.
She had to transfer? Really? Was she really scared? It's easy to claim safety concerns when it is impossible to prove a negative.
-
She had to transfer? Really? Was she really scared? It's easy to claim safety concerns when it is impossible to prove a negative.
Let's see: Tenured professor excoriates graduate student on a public blog and publishes her name and her contact information. She receives threats including calls for someone to blow her brains out. MUPD is concerned enough to post an officer outside her classroom.
Yeah, I think she would have reason to be afraid.
And as a footnote, the tenured professor reveals her new location on the blog even after he was made aware of the earlier threats. Class act.
-
And as a footnote, the tenured professor reveals her new location on the blog even after he was made aware of the earlier threats. Class act.
So did that terribly unclassy Journal Sentinel, long before McAdams mentioned it on his blog. http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/teaching-assistant-leaving-marquette-amid-mcadams-controversy-b99412266z1-286422861.html
-
Let's see: Tenured professor excoriates graduate student on a public blog and publishes her name and her contact information. She receives threats including calls for someone to blow her brains out. MUPD is concerned enough to post an officer outside her classroom.
Yeah, I think she would have reason to be afraid.
And as a footnote, the tenured professor reveals her new location on the blog even after he was made aware of the earlier threats. Class act.
If I recall, he pointed to her blog. He didn't publish her contact information, she published it herself.
Threats to blow her brains out....I'll be honest, I don't take any of those seriously. I just don't. Whack jobs make all kinds of threats...if they were made at all. Let me give you an example..it just happened again in the news last week where a woman claimed to receive death threats and she even provided written evidence. Then we find out, she sent the letters to herself.
Now, am I saying that happened here? I have no idea. The threats could be real, they could be just nonsense, hard to say. But in today's day and age when some anonymous idiot says something like that (if it was said), I don't put a penny worth of credibility into it and neither does law enforcement. They are not credible threats.
All one had to do was use Google to see where she is at. I don't understand the hostility toward him in this manner when all it takes is a simple search of her name. By the way, it was published long before by major news outlets, so why is that on McAdams?
-
I agree with this analysis.
Sultan thinks it's priceless because he lives in the cocoon of academia which is a low risk, low threat environment.
I have no idea what people said to Abbate but the fact she let internet bullies chase her off is pathetic.
You asked about my daughter - she is made of sterner stuff.
-
Will be in Boulder this Summer, one of the Pac 12 schools my son is visiting. Maybe I'll wear my Marquette sweatshirt around the Philosophy department.
-
This is priceless. Just priceless.
No, I'll tell you what is priceless. We had dinner this evening with the nephew of a colleague. Dr Allen Eghrari is a faculty member at the Wilmer Eye Institute who is in Seattle to present a paper at the ARVO Ophthalmology Conference.
He and his colleagues from Wilmer have spent 6 months in each of the past 5 years in west Africa working with Ebola survivors to research a spike in blindness in this patient population. They are doing God's work trying to help the most destitute people imaginable. And they have made some landmark discoveries in identifying the causes of blindness in people who have survived one of the most terrible viruses.
These young physicians leave the family comforts of an upper middle class life behind to help people in primitive conditions. They are kindred spirits friends of mine like like Danny Sands, Jeff Blander, and Paul Farmer who have devoted their considerable professional skills to addressing staggering health care problems afflicting the poor and impoverished.
What these people do is priceless. The travails of a cranky old professor and a mediocre aspiring academic are meaningless by comparison.
-
Will be in Boulder this Summer, one of the Pac 12 schools my son is visiting. Maybe I'll wear my Marquette sweatshirt around the Philosophy department.
Don't. She may soil herself.
-
Made a very small donation, wish they would have allowed for a note or something, to say why one was donating.
-
Made a very small donation, wish they would have allowed for a note or something, to say why one was donating.
(https://33.media.tumblr.com/e698ebedfbd6b21f12c87e5c67a5bfd4/tumblr_inline_o4s1ysdFYy1u4pyx2_500.gif)
-
Made a very small donation, wish they would have allowed for a note or something, to say why one was donating.
How dare they rob you of the opportunity to make it all about you?
-
(https://33.media.tumblr.com/e698ebedfbd6b21f12c87e5c67a5bfd4/tumblr_inline_o4s1ysdFYy1u4pyx2_500.gif)
For now, yup. I need a bit more information on where this money is going and if it truly is backing Prof McAdams. More to come. Will enjoy diverting donations to this cause.
-
Sultan thinks it's priceless because he lives in the cocoon of academia which is a low risk, low threat environment.
No I think it's precious that daddy brags up her daughter on a message board and we're supposed to treat the source as unbiased.
-
I've been re thinking my position on this.
Maybe Abbate was really a student. She did respond like an immature 20 year old undergrad.....didn't she?
If she would have responded with maturity and poise, this matter would not be escalated to the level of ridiculous. The "She was only a student" narrative was created by lawyers and PR hacks. Abbate will face a lot tougher skullduggery in the competitive halls of academia. The fact that she couldn't handle a wet behind the ears undergrad does not bode well for her.
This is an embarrassment to Marquette. The administration chose to use this as a way to rid themselves of a long time thorn in their side. If they had put all the parties in a room to hug it out, the matter never sees the light of day. Now they are handing McAdams a huge PR victory and enhancing his retirement income significantly.. Good Job MU.
-
No, I'll tell you what is priceless. We had dinner this evening with the nephew of a colleague. Dr Allen Eghrari is a faculty member at the Wilmer Eye Institute who is in Seattle to present a paper at the ARVO Ophthalmology Conference.
He and his colleagues from Wilmer have spent 6 months in each of the past 5 years in west Africa working with Ebola survivors to research a spike in blindness in this patient population. They are doing God's work trying to help the most destitute people imaginable. And they have made some landmark discoveries in identifying the causes of blindness in people who have survived one of the most terrible viruses.
These young physicians leave the family comforts of an upper middle class life behind to help people in primitive conditions. They are kindred spirits friends of mine like like Danny Sands, Jeff Blander, and Paul Farmer who have devoted their considerable professional skills to addressing staggering health care problems afflicting the poor and impoverished.
What these people do is priceless. The travails of a cranky old professor and a mediocre aspiring academic are meaningless by comparison.
Then STFU, log out, and let us mere minions who merely have the opportunity to walk the same soil as you do go on debating like a bunch of monkeys at the zoo.
-
I've been re thinking my position on this.
Maybe Abbate was really a student. She did respond like an immature 20 year old undergrad.....didn't she?
If she would have responded with maturity and poise, this matter would not be escalated to the level of ridiculous. The "She was only a student" narrative was created by lawyers and PR hacks. Abbate will face a lot tougher skullduggery in the competitive halls of academia. The fact that she couldn't handle a wet behind the ears undergrad does not bode well for her.
I agree that this doesn't bode well for her. She didn't act well in her role. But the student narrative was not created by PR hacks. It was created by Marquette and based on the traditions of academia.
-
I agree that this doesn't bode well for her. She didn't act well in her role. But the student narrative was not created by PR hacks. It was created by Marquette and based on the traditions of academia.
Sultan,
This moved beyond the traditions of academia a long time ago. It's in the hands of the court system now. I think the traditions of academia dictated that Abbate keep this to a conversation in her office to diffuse it and that would be the end.
-
No one here is defending Abbatte. I'm certainly not.
The issue is the conduct by McAdams.
-
No one here is defending Abbatte. I'm certainly not.
The issue is the conduct by McAdams.
Fair enough, Marquette won't be able to limit this lawsuit to the subject of McAdams' conduct. McAdams and his lawyers will have fun digging into all of Marquette's internal email on this issue, all of the procedures used to handle the undergrad's complaint, everything related to the committee report, deposing Lovell on his apology requirement, etc.
I hope Marquette factored in a couple years of discovery hell when deciding to take the hard line.
-
No one here is defending Abbatte. I'm certainly not.
The issue is the conduct by McAdams.
I know that's where the McAdams haters want it to go. Not so sure the courts will see it that way.
-
I know that's where the McAdams haters want it to go. Not so sure the courts will see it that way.
I don't see how the lawyers can't look at the way middle management handled this. McAdams blogging is theoretically (in his version) as a direct response to his belief that MU administration did not redress the undergrads complaint correctly.
I.E. if MU handles everything correctly McAdams doesn't blog and Abbatte goes on being an unknown, bad teacher at Marquette.
I'm putting faith in the administration that they've walked through all scenarios and are standing on principles that are worth defending. I'm hoping they recognize their low level administration f'ed up and will correct that in the future. We'll find out in the next couple of year if that faith is misplaced or not.
-
I don't see how the lawyers can't look at the way middle management handled this. McAdams blogging is theoretically (in his version) as a direct response to his belief that MU administration did not redress the undergrads complaint correctly.
I.E. if MU handles everything correctly McAdams doesn't blog and Abbatte goes on being an unknown, bad teacher at Marquette.
I'm putting faith in the administration that they've walked through all scenarios and are standing on principles that are worth defending. I'm hoping they recognize their low level administration f'ed up and will correct that in the future. We'll find out in the next couple of year if that faith is misplaced or not.
I agree with your last part.
I have to say though your middle part is not quite the same way i see it. McAdams could have blasted away at the administration and not named anyone's name. That was not smart on his part. We like to talk about over-reach on MU's part on discipline....there was over-reach everywhere.
-
I agree with your last part.
I have to say though your middle part is not quite the same way i see it. McAdams could have blasted away at the administration and not named anyone's name. That was not smart on his part. We like to talk about over-reach on MU's part on discipline....there was over-reach everywhere.
We're in full agreement, I'm not trying to let McAdams off the hook especially as I think he has acted the least adult in this whole scenario. I was just trying to put out an argument that McAdams himself might make.
-
I read her thesis on how the risk matrix for avoiding collateral damage in warfare violates the concept of just war.
She is neither a warrior nor a scholar. She is a shrill emotional voice who does not comprehend the choices that must be made in combat.
Frankly, her take on the ethics of warfighting is rubbish.
Glad she is no longer poisoning the minds of MU students. She will fit in well at the Peoples Republic of Boulder. Everyone involved sticking to their principals just creates a big black eye for MU. Can't believe this couldn't have been handled quietly.
-
Glad she is no longer poisoning the minds of MU students. She will fit in well at the Peoples Republic of Boulder. Everyone involved sticking to their principals just creates a big black eye for MU. Can't believe this couldn't have been handled quietly.
I know this could have been handled better, though I'm not completely sure on my own exactly how.
But, knowing that McAdams was involved here, there was no way this was going to be quiet. Even if MU did not release anything or make a press release, McAdams would have been shouting.
-
No I think it's precious that daddy brags up her daughter on a message board and we're supposed to treat the source as unbiased.
As opposed to the daddy who goes to the local high school to threaten the principal because his kids are getting bullied.
My daughter went to college in a not great part of Manhattan at 17. And at the age of 21 she was working in sub-Saharan Africa working on clean water programs. For the past year she has been at the LSHTM and will return for her final year in Boston to finish up her MPH.
My wife taught her children to be strong, self-reliant, and intrepid. And she never would have gone to any school to demand that the authorities take action against kids picking on hers.
My daughter would never, ever let anonymous internet bullies cause her to change her life's path or trajectory. I think her mother's maxim that kids need to figure things out for themselves has served her well.
And yes, my colleague's nephew who is a faculty member at Johns Hopkins doing research in west Africa on blindness among ebola survivors is priceless. If Cheryl Abbate lives to be 100 she will never come close to matching what Dr Allen Eghrari has accomplished in the past 5 years at Wilmer.
-
Found out that MU contacted the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and fed them the"bullying" headline/story. I'm not sure it's in Marquette's best interest to go to war with the JS carrying it's water, though.
When the JS went on it's rampage to try and take down Rebecca Bradley in her Supreme Court race, they published the infamous "affair" headline and story, which only served to create an enormous backlash. To show how liberal the JS is now, that "story" that the JS printed on the front page was also shopped to the Capital Times in Madison and the Wisconsin State Journal and both papers thought there wasn't anything close to news there and refused to cover it.
George Stanley tried to take down Rebecca Bradley and failed. We'll see if he has better luck with John McAdams.
-
Found out that MU contacted the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and fed them the"bullying" headline/story. I'm not sure it's in Marquette's best interest to go to war with the JS carrying it's water, though.
When the JS went on it's rampage to try and take down Rebecca Bradley in her Supreme Court race, they published the infamous "affair" headline and story, which only served to create an enormous backlash. To show how liberal the JS is now, that "story" that the JS printed on the front page was also shopped to the Capital Times in Madison and the Wisconsin State Journal and both papers thought there wasn't anything close to news there and refused to cover it.
George Stanley tried to take down Rebecca Bradley and failed. We'll see if he has better luck with John McAdams.
There aren't any Democrats involved in shenanigans that deserve the paper's attention. Why not take a shot at McAdams.
Teal for BrandX
-
If this true, then Catholic teaching at MU is considered homophobic and bigotry. What has happened at my alma matre, to my country; when people can lose their jobs just for expressing an opinion?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/17/marquette-university-tells-employees-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage-could-be-unlawful-harassment/
-
If this true, then Catholic teaching at MU is considered homophobic and bigotry. What has happened at my alma matre, to my country; when people can lose their jobs just for expressing an opinion?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/17/marquette-university-tells-employees-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage-could-be-unlawful-harassment/
it's in the spirit of our living, breathing, evolution my man. you're just out of touch and behind the times
-
So will we be able to still talk about McAdams et al?
-
UW professors are whining and crying about the potential loss of tenure protection.
McAdams has tenure and still may be fired for political reasons.
What do you think the chances are that UW profs will stand up for McAdams.
-
UW professors are not losing tenure protection. They have been absolutely ridiculous in their response to this.
-
UW professors are whining and crying about the potential loss of tenure protection.
McAdams has tenure and still may be fired for political reasons.
What do you think the chances are that UW profs will stand up for McAdams.
McAdams is not being fired for political reasons. He is being fired for repeatedly violating University codes of ethics in regards to students. His violations have been documented and he continued to violate these rules that are in place solely to protect the students.
He was right to be fired and he has no one to blame but himself.
Those attacking Abbate should be ashamed of themselves. Also, Keefe, she didn't give up her path due to internet bullies. She continued her path in a different way to ultimately both protect herself and continue her life goals.
If you daughter didn't continue her path in a safer manner after threats, frankly she'd be an idiot. There is a difference between being brave and stupid and a difference between being stubborn (sticking with the same exact path) and creative (achieving the same goals in a safer wiser manner).
-
McAdams is not being fired for political reasons. He is being fired for repeatedly violating University codes of ethics in regards to students. His violations have been documented and he continued to violate these rules that are in place solely to protect the students.
He was right to be fired and he has no one to blame but himself.
Those attacking Abbate should be ashamed of themselves. Also, Keefe, she didn't give up her path due to internet bullies. She continued her path in a different way to ultimately both protect herself and continue her life goals.
If you daughter didn't continue her path in a safer manner after threats, frankly she'd be an idiot. There is a difference between being brave and stupid and a difference between being stubborn (sticking with the same exact path) and creative (achieving the same goals in a safer wiser manner).
then why will he, as many seem to think or believe, win a lawsuit if there was "no harm, no foul"? or do you think he does not have a case since MU fired him for "bad form" toward a student?
-
No I think it's precious that daddy brags up her daughter on a message board and we're supposed to treat the source as unbiased.
Hey its one of the few posts where he hasn't bragged up himself. i consider it a significant step forward.
-
Hey its one of the few posts where he hasn't bragged up himself. i consider it a significant step forward.
Bragging up your kid is basically the same as bragging up yourself - especially if you state (as he did) that the reason your kid is so awesome is because of the way you raised her.
-
then why will he, as many seem to think or believe, win a lawsuit if there was "no harm, no foul"? or do you think he does not have a case since MU fired him for "bad form" toward a student?
I don't think he will win a lawsuit.
MU may settle with him, because it would cost more in legal fees to fight a case, but he won't win a lawsuit.
-
I don't think he will win a lawsuit.
MU may settle with him, because it would cost more in legal fees to fight a case, but he won't win a lawsuit.
the defense was poking quite a few holes in MU's notices, memoranda, or what have you. i realize that's what the defense does, but MU will be juggling a lot of balls here. was taking on mcadams and then firing him the only option they had? because this is going to cost them more than legal fees and some money to mcadams you know.
-
the defense was poking quite a few holes in MU's notices, memoranda, or what have you. i realize that's what the defense does, but MU will be juggling a lot of balls here. was taking on mcadams and then firing him the only option they had? because this is going to cost them more than legal fees and some money to mcadams you know.
IDK, but I suspect MU had finally had enough of him and decided it was willing to pay the price.
-
IDK, but I suspect MU had finally had enough of him and decided it was willing to pay the price.
Exactly
-
the defense was poking quite a few holes in MU's notices, memoranda, or what have you. i realize that's what the defense does, but MU will be juggling a lot of balls here. was taking on mcadams and then firing him the only option they had? because this is going to cost them more than legal fees and some money to mcadams you know.
No, it won't. Doing nothing would have cost them much more. A wrongful termination case (don't think it would be successful anyway), is much cheaper than a hostile work environment case and title IX investigation that would have followed if they didn't do something about McAdams.
-
"is much cheaper than a hostile work environment case and title IX investigation"
pardon my naivety, but not ever working within a school/university type environment, how does this work? what if they would have just ignored it? let mcadams blog away as he has for the past ?? years, maybe a cease and desist, i don't know... but doing what they did, caused it to grow into what it is today.
right now, there is a lull, but wait until a court thing gets closer and/or a settlement is ATTEMPTED. remember, mcadams really has nothing to lose. he's in his 70's, right? does he need the money? the chances of there being a $$ settlement with a "stfu" probably won't be agreed upon by him. he wants to go "whole hog" in other words, get his "money's worth"
-
"is much cheaper than a hostile work environment case and title IX investigation"
pardon my naivety, but not ever working within a school/university type environment, how does this work? what if they would have just ignored it? let mcadams blog away as he has for the past ?? years, maybe a cease and desist, i don't know... but doing what they did, caused it to grow into what it is today.
right now, there is a lull, but wait until a court thing gets closer and/or a settlement is ATTEMPTED. remember, mcadams really has nothing to lose. he's in his 70's, right? does he need the money? the chances of there being a $$ settlement with a "stfu" probably won't be agreed upon by him. he wants to go "whole hog" in other words, get his "money's worth"
Any idea when that will be? Do they televise court proceedings in Wisconsin? If we don't make the NCAA next season, McAdams vs. MU just might be the most entertaining game in town.
-
Any idea when that will be? Do they televise court proceedings in Wisconsin? If we don't make the NCAA next season, McAdams vs. MU just might be the most entertaining game in town.
That's why MU took on the suit. I've heard rumblings that MU asked the Big East to provide the judge.
-
Any idea when that will be? Do they televise court proceedings in Wisconsin? If we don't make the NCAA next season, McAdams vs. MU just might be the most entertaining game in town.
i have no idea but if they do a pay per view and/or move it to bmo building it might defray some of MU's costs-enn'a so?
-
Couple of observations about the McAdams problem, after having read the majority of the posts herein, as well as receiving university communications:
1) There are two issues intermeshed as one. The first is academic freedom, or the ability to communicate unpopular or unaccepted ideas across the university community.
2) The second is the way in which a tenured professor deals with colleagues who behave in violation of the first issue -- academic freedom.
To deal with the second issue first, McAdams did something that most employers would bristle at. If I criticized my employer in a public forum or used the internet to be critical of a colleague, no matter how youthful and how right or wrong he or she might be, my back side would sitting on Wacker Drive in Chicago without as much as a hardy, "thank you for your service." The duty of loyalty is an incumbent part of any employment and as aggravated or disheartened as Professor McAdams might have been, he violated his duty of loyalty to Marquette.
If you don't like what your company is becoming -- be it a university or a private commercial firm -- leave and find something more to your liking (incidentally, I'm not a flaming liberal by any measure).
Now for the first issue. I'm reminded of my time on campus when the Jesuits were pushing us for community service in the name of social justice. Over and over, we heard calls for us to be involved in the Greater Milwaukee community. There was so much suffering around us that the Jesuits wanted us to personify the Word and go forth to assist the less fortunate.
Into that discussion entered a letter writer to the Marquette Tribune. I'll spare mentioning his name here, except for the fact that he had a "III" next to it. His eloquence described the local residents of the communities around Marquette as "human refuse" who created their own version of hell and therefore should work their own way out of it. His ultimate position, as I recall 35+ years later, was that the impoverished and suffering of our nearby neighborhood were not worthy of our assistance.
I didn't endorse Mr. III's idea, by any stretch of the imagination. I doubt seriously the Marquette Tribune would print his letters (there were more than one) today. Period. But Mr. III's letters did something critically important that was part of learning and part of the Marquette experience. He challenged us to think not just of our beliefs but of the beliefs of the people with whom we don't agree. We had heard so much about the value of human life. Now we had a challenge to it and it caused us to think.
Ultimately, I believe in what other writers spoke about -- the concept of positive moral values. As Dr. Beach use to dictate (as in "I'm dictating... it would behoove you to maybe take a note or two..."), those values will withstand the challenge of false or mistaken views. I'm afraid that as I grow older, too many of the millennials who have been educated at Marquette and elsewhere have never been challenged until they enter the work, or the real world.
That's a crying shame.
-
"is much cheaper than a hostile work environment case and title IX investigation"
pardon my naivety, but not ever working within a school/university type environment, how does this work? what if they would have just ignored it? let mcadams blog away as he has for the past ?? years, maybe a cease and desist, i don't know... but doing what they did, caused it to grow into what it is today.
There are two aspects here. 1) is creating a hostile environment for students. This wasn't only a blog post, it was an attack on Abbate, a student. All faculty are under obligation to work towards the betterment and growth of students. In publicly attacking Abbate, and creating an atmosphere where she became the targets of threats, McAdams demonstrated gross negligence and a violation of the university code of conduct. That created a hostile environment for a student.
In such situations the University has an obligation to take actions to rectify the situation and create a safe environment for the students. McAdams has done this before and was reprimanded. If MU failed to take action here, they would be legally liable for any and all damages to Abbate for failure to provide a safe working environment. Given the topic of discussion (gay marriage) and Abbate being a women, that would open Title IX inquiries which could put MU in violation of federal regulations. Regardless, best case situation would be a large financial settlement for Abbate and a public black eye for Title IX inquiry.
The second issue is related to the first, but in this case from an employee situation. Abbate is in the unique situation of simultaneously acting as a student and employee. So there would be a hostile workplace environment suit, where Abbate could claim that due to her fulfilling her duties to provide a safe learning environment for protected classes she was harassed (easy to prove) to the point of creating a personal threat (documented) where she felt at risk of being harmed (easy to prove).
I've said it before, but I find it appalling and frightening that anyone would ever support McAdams in this case. He is well outside of the realms of professional conduct and is in clear violation of University codes of conduct.
Remember, McAdams could have kept his job if he accepted a semester suspension without pay and made a public apology. He refused to do either.
-
There are two aspects here. 1) is creating a hostile environment for students. This wasn't only a blog post, it was an attack on Abbate, a student. All faculty are under obligation to work towards the betterment and growth of students. In publicly attacking Abbate, and creating an atmosphere where she became the targets of threats, McAdams demonstrated gross negligence and a violation of the university code of conduct. That created a hostile environment for a student.
In such situations the University has an obligation to take actions to rectify the situation and create a safe environment for the students. McAdams has done this before and was reprimanded. If MU failed to take action here, they would be legally liable for any and all damages to Abbate for failure to provide a safe working environment. Given the topic of discussion (gay marriage) and Abbate being a women, that would open Title IX inquiries which could put MU in violation of federal regulations. Regardless, best case situation would be a large financial settlement for Abbate and a public black eye for Title IX inquiry.
The second issue is related to the first, but in this case from an employee situation. Abbate is in the unique situation of simultaneously acting as a student and employee. So there would be a hostile workplace environment suit, where Abbate could claim that due to her fulfilling her duties to provide a safe learning environment for protected classes she was harassed (easy to prove) to the point of creating a personal threat (documented) where she felt at risk of being harmed (easy to prove).
I've said it before, but I find it appalling and frightening that anyone would ever support McAdams in this case. He is well outside of the realms of professional conduct and is in clear violation of University codes of conduct.
Remember, McAdams could have kept his job if he accepted a semester suspension without pay and made a public apology. He refused to do either.
your response is appreciated and respected. i do not mean to rehash the pages and pages of debate, but as dgles kind of stated very well in his post,
"He challenged us to think not just of our beliefs but of the beliefs of the people with whom we don't agree. We had heard so much about the value of human life. Now we had a challenge to it and it caused us to think."
i can see both sides of this issue as i do have my own stance and now, a better understanding of yours. however forgetful, with all due respect, this statement has some applications to your posture here-
"but I find it appalling and frightening that anyone would ever support McAdams in this case."
i guess we will just have to sit back and watch how this plays out. this issue seems to be one of those in which there aren't going to be any winners.
as for macadams not apologizing-men/women of principle, like it/agree with it or not, that's how they roll man
-
+1
Also, usually the people who talk the most about withholding their giving over some manufactured political outrage are the ones who give very little anyway. I'm sure MU will get by just fine without Chicos' giving.
I'm young and don't give much but I also don't act like it would be some monumental thing if I stopped.
And if we get really, really lucky, chicas will stop "contributing" to Scoop because it is MUScoop and he wants to show that he really, really means business.
Maybe this whole affair can have a wonderful outcome after all.
-
One of the things that struck me was how little McAdams is (was?) paid by Marquette. I think it was appox $77,000. This for a Harvard grad working for the same employer for almost half a century. Good Lord.
Interesting that when we talk about the "working man" and a compensation amount is given, that is always includes benefits.
When it is a professional, only the base salary is given.
-
Interesting that when we talk about the "working man" and a compensation amount is given, that is always includes benefits.
When it is a professional, only the base salary is given.
Excellent point
-
Interesting that when we talk about the "working man" and a compensation amount is given, that is always includes benefits.
When it is a professional, only the base salary is given.
Must be a conspiracy
-
I don't think he will win a lawsuit.
MU may settle with him, because it would cost more in legal fees to fight a case, but he won't win a lawsuit.
I think he wins, ultimately...which may mean the appeal, not the original case. I'm 2-0 on the Freddie Gray verdicts thus far. I got the hot hand....roll with it.
-
And if we get really, really lucky, chicas will stop "contributing" to Scoop because it is MUScoop and he wants to show that he really, really means business.
Maybe this whole affair can have a wonderful outcome after all.
(http://elpunto.do/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2-3.jpg)
-
(http://elpunto.do/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2-3.jpg)
can't get much more wonderful than this ;D well played to the dude who's head is filled with cbb.
-
can't get much more wonderful than this ;D well played to the dude who's head is filled with cbb.
You likely will have to explain it to him....he isn't very smart.
-
There are two aspects here. 1) is creating a hostile environment for students. This wasn't only a blog post, it was an attack on Abbate, a student. All faculty are under obligation to work towards the betterment and growth of students. In publicly attacking Abbate, and creating an atmosphere where she became the targets of threats, McAdams demonstrated gross negligence and a violation of the university code of conduct. That created a hostile environment for a student.
In such situations the University has an obligation to take actions to rectify the situation and create a safe environment for the students. McAdams has done this before and was reprimanded. If MU failed to take action here, they would be legally liable for any and all damages to Abbate for failure to provide a safe working environment. Given the topic of discussion (gay marriage) and Abbate being a women, that would open Title IX inquiries which could put MU in violation of federal regulations. Regardless, best case situation would be a large financial settlement for Abbate and a public black eye for Title IX inquiry.
The second issue is related to the first, but in this case from an employee situation. Abbate is in the unique situation of simultaneously acting as a student and employee. So there would be a hostile workplace environment suit, where Abbate could claim that due to her fulfilling her duties to provide a safe learning environment for protected classes she was harassed (easy to prove) to the point of creating a personal threat (documented) where she felt at risk of being harmed (easy to prove).
I've said it before, but I find it appalling and frightening that anyone would ever support McAdams in this case. He is well outside of the realms of professional conduct and is in clear violation of University codes of conduct.
Remember, McAdams could have kept his job if he accepted a semester suspension without pay and made a public apology. He refused to do either.
What I find frightening is that no one is speaking out on behalf of the other student. I guess he is not entitled and has no rights since he is not part of any protected class where the government could withhold federal funds. The irony here is that student tried to go through proper channels and was shut down and McAdams is the one being fired for bringing that out to the public. I guess safe environments only exist for student teachers and not plain students. From where I sit no apology needed.
-
What I find frightening is that no one is speaking out on behalf of the other student. I guess he is not entitled and has no rights since he is not part of any protected class where the government could withhold federal funds.
That is silly and wrong.
The irony here is that student tried to go through proper channels and was shut down and McAdams is the one being fired for bringing that out to the public. I guess safe environments only exist for student teachers and not plain students. From where I sit no apology needed.
Did Abbatte mention the student's name in a blog? Did anyone mention his name anywhere? You are creating a false equivalency.
-
That is silly and wrong.
Did Abbatte mention the student's name in a blog? Did anyone mention his name anywhere? You are creating a false equivalency.
That is my whole point. Abate, the Philosophy Department and the University wanted it kept quiet and his view silenced so why would they mention his name. McAdams pointed to her Web site and did not initially mention her name.
-
That is my whole point. Abate, the Philosophy Department and the University wanted it kept quiet and his view silenced so why would they mention his name. McAdams pointed to her Web site and did not initially mention her name.
OK...I guess you can find any way to find victimization.
-
What I find frightening is that no one is speaking out on behalf of the other student. I guess he is not entitled and has no rights since he is not part of any protected class where the government could withhold federal funds. The irony here is that student tried to go through proper channels and was shut down and McAdams is the one being fired for bringing that out to the public. I guess safe environments only exist for student teachers and not plain students. From where I sit no apology needed.
Ummm, no. First, he didn't go through proper channels. He lied to Abbate about being recorded. He did all of this to try to trap the student/teacher into an awkward situation. Instead of then going to department chairs etc., (proper channels), he went to McAdams and the media.
Pretty much the opposite of trying to do the right thing, and reeks of an agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if the kid really didn't care at all about gay marriage, but just wanted publicity.
And as Sultan said, no one brought up his name at all.
-
your response is appreciated and respected. i do not mean to rehash the pages and pages of debate, but as dgles kind of stated very well in his post,
"He challenged us to think not just of our beliefs but of the beliefs of the people with whom we don't agree. We had heard so much about the value of human life. Now we had a challenge to it and it caused us to think."
That is great. It doesn't change the fact that in the end he violated the code of conduct for professors. If he wanted to make change and challenge others to listen to others they don't agree with, he could have sat down and talked with Abbate and taught her how to deal with situations like that.
He didn't do that, because he is more interested in getting his name/agenda out in public than actually accomplishing anything.
i can see both sides of this issue as i do have my own stance and now, a better understanding of yours. however forgetful, with all due respect, this statement has some applications to your posture here-
"but I find it appalling and frightening that anyone would ever support McAdams in this case."
i guess we will just have to sit back and watch how this plays out. this issue seems to be one of those in which there aren't going to be any winners.
as for macadams not apologizing-men/women of principle, like it/agree with it or not, that's how they roll man
That does highlight my stance. The fact is there is a duty of a professor to a student, he willfully and continuously violated that duty. No matter your stance on gay marriage, there is no defending McAdams here.
-
McAdams is not being fired for political reasons. He is being fired for repeatedly violating University codes of ethics in regards to students. His violations have been documented and he continued to violate these rules that are in place solely to protect the students.
He was right to be fired and he has no one to blame but himself.
Those attacking Abbate should be ashamed of themselves. Also, Keefe, she didn't give up her path due to internet bullies. She continued her path in a different way to ultimately both protect herself and continue her life goals.
If you daughter didn't continue her path in a safer manner after threats, frankly she'd be an idiot. There is a difference between being brave and stupid and a difference between being stubborn (sticking with the same exact path) and creative (achieving the same goals in a safer wiser manner).
Yeah, sure.
-
Yeah, sure.
Other conservative professors haven't been fired.
-
Other conservative professors haven't been fired.
There are other conservative professors?
-
There are other conservative professors?
yeah , both of them
-
There are other conservative professors?
Many.
-
There are other conservative professors?
My tax professor (Trebby) was incredibly conservative and would often pick spots in class to go on a conservative rant against liberals. I'm mostly conservative myself, so I kind of found these rants somewhat funny (and generally more entertaining than discussing tax).
-
I had plenty of conservative professors. If I had to guess I could definitively say 1/3 of my professors were obviously liberal, 1/3 were obviously conservative, and the other 1/3 were better at keeping their biases hidden. Maybe those 1/3 were liberal too, and the balance really is more in favor of liberals at Marquette, but very few let it sway their teaching to the point it was obvious.
Some departments were stacked more one way than the other but I'm aware of plenty of conservatives in the business school, and even in Arts & Sciences in the Econ, History, and Poli Sci fields.
The suggestion that McAdams was singled out for his political views is ludicrous. There are scores of other conservatives that are not being targeted. He is rather being singled out for his complete disregard for the ethics of the profession.
-
I had plenty of conservative professors. If I had to guess I could definitively say 1/3 of my professors were obviously liberal, 1/3 were obviously conservative, and the other 1/3 were better at keeping their biases hidden. Maybe those 1/3 were liberal too, and the balance really is more in favor of liberals at Marquette, but very few let it sway their teaching to the point it was obvious.
Some departments were stacked more one way than the other but I'm aware of plenty of conservatives in the business school, and even in Arts & Sciences in the Econ, History, and Poli Sci fields.
The suggestion that McAdams was singled out for his political views is ludicrous. There are scores of other conservatives that are not being targeted. He is rather being singled out for his complete disregard for the ethics of the profession.
Of course. But it doesn't fit the narrative. And it pains me to say that as a conservative.
-
Other conservative professors haven't been fired.
They haven't been a thorn in the Administration's side.
-
They haven't been a thorn in the Administration's side.
So the squeaky wheel who does something wrong gets punished. Sounds like a story that has never been written before...
-
They haven't been a thorn in the Administration's side.
He's been a thorn in their side for years. Why now?
-
Other conservative professors haven't been fired.
Not Yet!
From NCR:
There are also academic freedom concerns related to Catholic identity: At Marquette University, professors have complained that the aggressive implementation of Title IX’s expansive interpretations, combined with vague definitions of what constitutes a “hostile environment,” are suppressing their academic freedom to teach Catholic theology in the classroom and promote Marquette’s Catholic identity on campus.
According to the meeting minutes of Concerned Catholics at Marquette University that were provided to the Register, a number of faculty expressed concern that the new Title IX mandates being implemented at the Catholic institution “necessarily restrict the free exchange of ideas, particularly in theology and philosophy — the very core of Catholic, Jesuit education.”
The concerns were not limited to professors alone. One professor said some students shared they did not feel comfortable sharing Church teaching in that environment.
“This is the opposite of university education,” one professor at Marquette University, who declined to be identified for this article, told the Register. The professor said the university’s Title IX compliance on issues of gender and sexuality is dampening classroom discussion of Church teaching in these areas and throwing another wrench in ongoing efforts to strengthen the university’s Catholic identity and mission.
A number of colleagues, the professor added, related that the recent Title IX training and campus environment made it “very intimidating” to speak about Catholic doctrine on sexuality in their classrooms, because that might be perceived by a student as a “hostile environment” and thus worthy of a Title IX complaint. At least one theology faculty member teaching about Genesis in his classroom received a complaint, after a student who had two fathers objected to the classroom presentation of the Church’s teaching of marriage.
“Don’t people come to universities so they can grow up? If they’re going into safe houses, how can they grow up if they can’t even deal with someone who disagrees?” the professor said.
Anyone who teaches Catholic theology regarding sexuality will be brought up on a Title IX complaint at MU, if McAdams loses his tenure. If they fight it they'll be out the door with the full weight of the Federal Government kicking them on the way out. McAdams is the poster child to silence conservative voices.
-
Lol. Right.
-
Lol. Right.
http://marquettewire.org/3950495/opinion/an-open-letter-to-the-university-on-inclusivity-and-tolerance/
Afraid to even sign their name in fear of retribution. Pretty scary if you ask me.
-
Oy. Victims abound.
"We are now being told that certain topics and conversations are not acceptable. The university has even required training by its employees (including all faculty) on these points. It states that even being overheard by a third party discussing certain topics (e.g. gay marriage) constitutes harassment."
I don't believe that for one second. Show me anything that Marquette has done that says this. If it's "required training" it is out there. Nothing that I can see on the HR site.
-
http://marquettewire.org/3950495/opinion/an-open-letter-to-the-university-on-inclusivity-and-tolerance/
Afraid to even sign their name in fear of retribution. Pretty scary if you ask me.
Or afraid to sign their name because they are actually a close friend of McAdams and they want to carry on the diatribe of "I don't even know him".
As a faculty member at a christian university that has gone through diversity training, I can assure you that they do not tell you that just discussing gay marriage, or the catholic teachings regarding gay marriage is a Title IX investigation.
-
Oy. Victims abound.
"We are now being told that certain topics and conversations are not acceptable. The university has even required training by its employees (including all faculty) on these points. It states that even being overheard by a third party discussing certain topics (e.g. gay marriage) constitutes harassment."
I don't believe that for one second. Show me anything that Marquette has done that says this. If it's "required training" it is out there. Nothing that I can see on the HR site.
I don't have access to the HR site, but others do and are concerned. The only information I have access to is what others are claiming and not just Mcadams. If McAdams is incorrect show me where.
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/09/marquettes-bizarre-training-on.html
-
Or afraid to sign their name because they are actually a close friend of McAdams and they want to carry on the diatribe of "I don't even know him".
As a faculty member at a christian university that has gone through diversity training, I can assure you that they do not tell you that just discussing gay marriage, or the catholic teachings regarding gay marriage is a Title IX investigation.
So training, etc, is the same across all universities?
-
I don't have access to the HR site, but others do and are concerned. The only information I have access to is what others are claiming and not just Mcadams. If McAdams is incorrect show me where.
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/09/marquettes-bizarre-training-on.html
Read what the wire said. Read what McAdams said. There is a key difference.
-
So training, etc, is the same across all universities?
Most Universities contract out to the same company and used canned online training packets that are approved to CYA in case of any lawsuits.
That makes things extremely similar across Universities as it allows them to point out that this is the same training approved for and being used by almost all Universities.
-
In a non-academic context, two employees talking about gay marriage most definitely CAN be harassment depending on the tone of the discussion. Two employees talking about Christians in an insulting manner CAN be harassment too. This is just like any other workplace in that regard.
The Wire letter implies that's the case automatically and in an academic setting. (Classroom discussion for instance.) I find that highly unbelievable.
-
In a non-academic context, two employees talking about gay marriage most definitely CAN be harassment depending on the tone of the discussion. Two employees talking about Christians in an insulting manner CAN be harassment too. This is just like any other workplace in that regard.
The Wire letter implies that's the case automatically and in an academic setting. (Classroom discussion for instance.) I find that highly unbelievable.
What you describe is how the training is actually set up. It places everything in context and in tone. The purpose is to show what one can discuss topics openly to learn more and teach, without being offensive.
If the theology instructors are really feeling hampered by the training etc., then they need to learn how to teach properly...they are doing it wrong. There is nothing in the trainings that say topics cannot be discussed at all; or that brining up a topic is offensive.
-
Most Universities contract out to the same company and used canned online training packets that are approved to CYA in case of any lawsuits.
That makes things extremely similar across Universities as it allows them to point out that this is the same training approved for and being used by almost all Universities.
Is this an opinion, or a fact? From what little research I did on the web, looks like many more than just "the same company".
-
What you describe is how the training is actually set up. It places everything in context and in tone. The purpose is to show what one can discuss topics openly to learn more and teach, without being offensive.
If the theology instructors are really feeling hampered by the training etc., then they need to learn how to teach properly...they are doing it wrong. There is nothing in the trainings that say topics cannot be discussed at all; or that brining up a topic is offensive.
So if a theology professor states emphatically in class that homosexual behavior is sinful according to church teaching, is that harassment? If two or more students come out of that class and start discussing homosexual behavior in the hall way and some other student overhears that conversation and is "offended" is that harassment according to Title IX training? How does one teach Catholic doctrine and still comply with Title IX directives without "offending" someone.
-
So if a theology professor states emphatically in class that homosexual behavior is sinful according to church teaching, is that harassment? If two or more students come out of that class and start discussing homosexual behavior in the hall way and some other student overhears that conversation and is "offended" is that harassment according to Title IX training?
If the professor simply states that it is against Catholic theology, that is definitely not harassment. The second isn't either.
Remember your first point was about employee training.
-
Is this an opinion, or a fact? From what little research I did on the web, looks like many more than just "the same company".
How about this. I just talked to a good friend who is a faculty member in biology at MU. They confirmed that MU uses the same Title IX and Diversity module as my University.
-
How about this. I just talked to a good friend who is a faculty member in biology at MU. They confirmed that MU uses the same Title IX and Diversity module as my University.
Cool, so two out of several thousand....that must mean the same company. ;) Be honest, also, your friend actually knows the company that delivers the Title IX module training? That's some great branding by that company. How often do you guys take this training...daily? 8-) Or is it once a year?
-
Cool, so two out of several thousand....that must mean the same company. ;) Be honest, also, your friend actually knows the company that delivers the Title IX module training? That's some great branding by that company. How often do you guys take this training...daily? 8-) Or is it once a year?
At our shop, every new employee takes it and everyone has to re-up every five years. Student affairs and athletics require it every two or three.
-
At our shop, every new employee takes it and everyone has to re-up every five years. Student affairs and athletics require it every two or three.
Exactly. In my line of work, we have to take these type of trainings, once a year, some once every two years. Let's just say I find it more than a bit impressive that Forgetful's good friend remembers who provides the module at MU for this sort of thing. That's very impressive and that company rep or whomever put that module together deserves a big raise for the recall from the biology department. ;)
-
Exactly. In my line of work, we have to take these type of trainings, once a year, some once every two years. Let's just say I find it more than a bit impressive that Forgetful's good friend remembers who provides the module at MU for this sort of thing. That's very impressive and that company rep or whomever put that module together deserves a big raise for the recall from the biology department. ;)
I am glad that I am retired. Would not last a day in the Orwellian work place we have now. I guess today my individual rights guaranteed to me are subordinate to the rights of the protected classes.
-
I am glad that I am retired. Would not last a day in the Orwellian work place we have now. I guess today my individual rights guaranteed to me are subordinate to the rights of the protected classes.
WTF are you talking about? It's about harassment in the work place. It isn't "Orwellian" in the least.
-
WTF are you talking about? It's about harassment in the work place. It isn't "Orwellian" in the least.
So are employees free to disagree with the definitions of harassment as set out in the training? If I and another co-worker are having a conversation over lunch about transgender people in locker rooms which is a topic of interest today and another employee overhears it and is "offended" and reports it to HR and then we are called into the office with the boss for a "sit down" sounds pretty "Orwellian" to me. But then your definition of Orwellian may differ from mine.
-
So employees are free to disagree with the definitions of harassment as set out in the training? If I and another co-worker are having a conversation over lunch about transgender people in locker rooms which is a topic of interest today and another employee overhears it and is "offended" and reports it to HR and then we are called into the office with the boss for a "sit down" sounds pretty "Orwellian" to me. But then your definition of Orwellian may differ from mine.
First, if someone reports it, it doesn't mean it's harassment. People can report whatever they want.
Second, it depends on how it is being discussed. If you are saying "I can't believe those freaks want to use the women's room," then yeah. It's offensive.
Third, this is not about Marquette University. This is pretty much the case in every workplace.
Fourth, the last thing anyone should do is discuss politics or these types of issues in the workplace. I have mentioned this before, but my secretary for the past 12 years is a young-earth creationist, die hard Trump supporter. She is great at her job.
-
First, if someone reports it, it doesn't mean it's harassment. People can report whatever they want.
Second, it depends on how it is being discussed. If you are saying "I can't believe those freaks want to use the women's room," then yeah. It's offensive.
Third, this is not about Marquette University. This is pretty much the case in every workplace.
Fourth, the last thing anyone should do is discuss politics or these types of issues in the workplace. I have mentioned this before, but my secretary for the past 12 years is a young-earth creationist, die hard Trump supporter. She is great at her job.
But that is exactly what they do when you go to training. Harassment training is politics (Title IX). So its OK to force one political agenda on everyone and pretty much tell them what they can't or shouldn't say.
-
But that is exactly what they do when you go to training. Harassment training is politics (Title IX). So its OK to force one political agenda on everyone and pretty much tell them what they can't or shouldn't say.
Uh no. White, male, heterosexual, Christians can't be harassed either based on their race, gender, sexual preference and religion. Title IX applies to men as well.
-
Uh no. White, male, heterosexual, Christians can't be harassed either based on their race, gender, sexual preference and religion. Title IX applies to men as well.
So where in the training does it give examples of that?
-
So where in the training does it give examples of that?
The one we used certainly gave examples of that. Just logged on to the training module we use and they give all shorts of examples. Men harassing men. Women harassing women.
You really are looking hard for something that doesn't exist.
-
Exactly. In my line of work, we have to take these type of trainings, once a year, some once every two years. Let's just say I find it more than a bit impressive that Forgetful's good friend remembers who provides the module at MU for this sort of thing. That's very impressive and that company rep or whomever put that module together deserves a big raise for the recall from the biology department. ;)
You really are insufferable.
Although we only have to take it every several years; the coursework remains in our training accounts. My friend and I just opened our modules and compared notes. Quite simple. No recall required.
-
I am responsible for some of the ethics and compliance training at my (non-university) workplace. I can confirm that our vendor works with many, many, other companies. There are not a huge amount of players in this space, for the simple reason that a lot of ethics training has specific requirements about what needs to be covered, so it makes sense from a cost perspective to make your training as uniform as possible. It is dull, but it meets the requirements.
I don't see why universities would be any different.
-
I am responsible for some of the ethics and compliance training at my (non-university) workplace. I can confirm that our vendor works with many, many, other companies. There are not a huge amount of players in this space, for the simple reason that a lot of ethics training has specific requirements about what needs to be covered, so it makes sense from a cost perspective to make your training as uniform as possible. It is dull, but it meets the requirements.
I don't see why universities would be any different.
The training may not come from the same company/vendor, but put it this way... as soon as one company comes up with a training course that is used to successfully defend against an allegation, every other company providing training begins duplicating their material.
This is just another example of industry "best practices"... you might have a bunch of independent consultants out there, but they're all sharing the same materials/methods because if any one of them were to fail and it goes viral, it makes their whole industry look bad... not to mention the calls of "why the hell are we paying $X for this when it didn't do a whole lot of good for that other company."
-
Been a while since I had to suffer through one of those sessions so I can't comment on them now. But things are so touchy about what can and can't be done I am glad I just retired..
Can't help but think back to the 90's when a nurse's surgery dept had a sign that read
Sexual Harassment in this department
Will not be reported
But will be graded
Sometimes a sense of humor can work better than outrage
-
Been a while since I had to suffer through one of those sessions so I can't comment on them now. But things are so touchy about what can and can't be done I am glad I just retired..
Can't help but think back to the 90's when a nurse's surgery dept had a sign that read
Sexual Harassment in this department
Will not be reported
But will be graded
Sometimes a sense of humor can work better than outrage
You honestly think that is funny?
-
You honestly think that is funny?
SNL did a skit on sexual harassment a while back. The gist was that an innocent nerd could be crucified by the same women in an office who viewed extremely coarse behavior by a "McDreamy" as harmless flirtation. I'd bet anything it was written by one of the female cast members. I thought it was hilarious.
-
You honestly think that is funny?
Considering that nurses are predominantly female, it was probably the lone male nurse in the department who was being harassed all the time.
If it was at an accounting firm, completely different story.
SNL did a skit on sexual harassment a while back. The gist was that an innocent nerd could be crucified by the same women in an office who viewed extremely coarse behavior by a "McDreamy" as harmless flirtation. I'd bet anything it was written by one of the female cast members. I thought it was hilarious.
I saw this too; good comedy. Unfortunately, it's probably not too far off reality.
-
Considering that nurses are predominantly female, it was probably the lone male nurse in the department who was being harassed all the time.
If it was at an accounting firm, completely different story.
I am sure it is funny until some male doctor rubs himself against your daughter or wife and says, "So...was I good enough to get an A?"
-
I'm with chick on this one
-
I am sure it is funny until some male doctor rubs himself against your daughter or wife and says, "So...was I good enough to get an A?"
I don't think it's the ladies who are the ones being harassed here. Male nurses, especially those in rural hospitals, are more often the target of harassment than the female nurses. It just isn't reported. Somewhere there was a male nurse in the 90s either with a sense of humor or who was just enjoying the soap opera. Doesn't make it funny at all. It's actually pretty sad to think that a) it occurs at all, and b) it's passively condoned by some.
-
So if a theology professor states emphatically in class that homosexual behavior is sinful according to church teaching, is that harassment? If two or more students come out of that class and start discussing homosexual behavior in the hall way and some other student overhears that conversation and is "offended" is that harassment according to Title IX training? How does one teach Catholic doctrine and still comply with Title IX directives without "offending" someone.
Does one of the students post the name of the other on the Internet strictly solely for the purpose of humiliating that student?
-
So if a theology professor states emphatically in class that homosexual behavior is sinful according to church teaching, is that harassment? If two or more students come out of that class and start discussing homosexual behavior in the hall way and some other student overhears that conversation and is "offended" is that harassment according to Title IX training? How does one teach Catholic doctrine and still comply with Title IX directives without "offending" someone.
Catholic Doctrine needs to catch up with the times. also people that claim homosexuality as a sin is catholic doctrine need to review the teachings of Christ and also the teachings of the Catholic Church
-
Catholic Doctrine needs to catch up with the times. also people that claim homosexuality as a sin is catholic doctrine need to review the teachings of Christ and also the teachings of the Catholic Church
From the catechism of the Catholic Church:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
-
From the catechism of the Catholic Church:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
Also from the Catechism of the Catholic Church
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter.
And from Pope Francis:
"If a person is gay and seeks out the Lord and is willing, who am I to judge that person?" the pope says. "I was paraphrasing by heart the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it says that these people should be treated with delicacy and not be marginalized."
"I am glad that we are talking about 'homosexual people' because before all else comes the individual person, in his wholeness and dignity," he continues. "And people should not be defined only by their sexual tendencies: let us not forget that God loves all his creatures and we are destined to receive his infinite love."
Finally Vatican II and the primacy of conscience:
"On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind." - Dignitatis Humanae
The Church moves slowly. It measures the years in centuries and millennia. This can be frustrating for humans who live 80 years, if they are lucky. The Church didn't apologize to Galileo for the wrongs committed to him until 1992. I have no doubt doctrine on homosexuality will develop in accordance with findings in science and psychology, just as it did with the former beliefs about a geocentric universe...what I don't know is how quickly.
-
Also from the Catechism of the Catholic Church
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
And from Pope Francis:
"If a person is gay and seeks out the Lord and is willing, who am I to judge that person?" the pope says. "I was paraphrasing by heart the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it says that these people should be treated with delicacy and not be marginalized."
"I am glad that we are talking about 'homosexual people' because before all else comes the individual person, in his wholeness and dignity," he continues. "And people should not be defined only by their sexual tendencies: let us not forget that God loves all his creatures and we are destined to receive his infinite love."
Finally Vatican II and the primacy of conscience:
"On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind." - Dignitatis Humanae
The Church moves slowly. It measures the years in centuries and millennia. This can be frustrating for humans who live 80 years, if they are lucky. The Church didn't apologize to Galileo for the wrongs committed to him until 1992. I have no doubt doctrine on homosexuality will develop in accordance with findings in science and psychology, just as it did with the former beliefs about a geocentric universe...what I don't know is how quickly.
Maybe you should read the Amoris Laetitia
-
Also from the Catechism of the Catholic Church
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter.
And from Pope Francis:
"If a person is gay and seeks out the Lord and is willing, who am I to judge that person?" the pope says. "I was paraphrasing by heart the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it says that these people should be treated with delicacy and not be marginalized."
"I am glad that we are talking about 'homosexual people' because before all else comes the individual person, in his wholeness and dignity," he continues. "And people should not be defined only by their sexual tendencies: let us not forget that God loves all his creatures and we are destined to receive his infinite love."
Finally Vatican II and the primacy of conscience:
"On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind." - Dignitatis Humanae
The Church moves slowly. It measures the years in centuries and millennia. This can be frustrating for humans who live 80 years, if they are lucky. The Church didn't apologize to Galileo for the wrongs committed to him until 1992. I have no doubt doctrine on homosexuality will develop in accordance with findings in science and psychology, just as it did with the former beliefs about a geocentric universe...what I don't know is how quickly.
Additionally to say that because it has been doctrine for over 1000 years doesn't mean it shouldn't and cannot change. Let's not forget that the teaching of the Bible, the teachings of Christ and Catholic Doctrine were all made up by a few guys with intent to convert others to their religion in order to give themselves more power.
-
Maybe you should read the Amoris Laetitia
I've read it multiple times. Plenty of good stuff in there too.
-
Additionally to say that because it has been doctrine for over 1000 years doesn't mean it shouldn't and cannot change. Let's not forget that the teaching of the Bible, the teachings of Christ and Catholic Doctrine were all made up by a few guys with intent to convert others to their religion in order to give themselves more power.
I agree with your first sentence.
The second sentence is a pretty broad generalization, with varying amounts of truth depending on what specific element of Church history you are talking about. Certainly a lot of the power structures in the emerging early Church were a reflection of broader structures in society at the time, reflecting a male-dominated hierarchical Roman society. However, this took shape centuries after the time of Christ and the writings of the New Testament. The Church prior to the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 was a rather egalitarian belief system that undermined traditional power structures.
-
I agree with your first sentence.
The second sentence is a pretty broad generalization, with varying amounts of truth depending on what specific element of Church history you are talking about. Certainly a lot of the power structures in the emerging early Church were a reflection of broader structures in society at the time, reflecting a male-dominated hierarchical Roman society. However, this took shape centuries after the time of Christ and the writings of the New Testament. The Church prior to the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 was a rather egalitarian belief system that undermined traditional power structures.
You are presupposing (erroneously) that there was even a person named Christ.
-
You are presupposing (erroneously) that there was even a person named Christ.
There was not a person named Christ. That is an honorific bestowed by later followers.
However, there is quite a bit of historical (non-Biblical) evidence for a person named Yeshua who lived in Roman Palestine during the period BC 6 - AD 30, who later was called Christos (Greek translation of Hebrew "Messiah" or annointed one) by his followers.
EDIT: Since I know you're going to ask, Flavius Josephus and Tacitus
-
Also from the Catechism of the Catholic Church
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter.
And from Pope Francis:
"If a person is gay and seeks out the Lord and is willing, who am I to judge that person?" the pope says. "I was paraphrasing by heart the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it says that these people should be treated with delicacy and not be marginalized."
"I am glad that we are talking about 'homosexual people' because before all else comes the individual person, in his wholeness and dignity," he continues. "And people should not be defined only by their sexual tendencies: let us not forget that God loves all his creatures and we are destined to receive his infinite love."
Finally Vatican II and the primacy of conscience:
"On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind." - Dignitatis Humanae
The Church moves slowly. It measures the years in centuries and millennia. This can be frustrating for humans who live 80 years, if they are lucky. The Church didn't apologize to Galileo for the wrongs committed to him until 1992. I have no doubt doctrine on homosexuality will develop in accordance with findings in science and psychology, just as it did with the former beliefs about a geocentric universe...what I don't know is how quickly.
Yes, treat the person with respect; but homosexual acts (behavior) are still intrinsically disordered and are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. This is Catholic teaching today. Yet, MU promotes the LGBTQ community and their behavior while remaining indifferent to Catholic teaching.
-
Yes, treat the person with respect; but homosexual acts (behavior) are still intrinsically disordered and are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. This is Catholic teaching today. Yet, MU promotes the LGBTQ community and their behavior while remaining indifferent to Catholic teaching.
Only if you decide to pick and choose the evidence you use to support your position.
-
Any idea when that will be? Do they televise court proceedings in Wisconsin? If we don't make the NCAA next season, McAdams vs. MU just might be the most entertaining game in town.
If this goes to the WI Supreme Court, oral arguments will be televised on Wisconsin Eye.
And the proceedings are open to the public.
-
Yes, treat the person with respect; but homosexual acts (behavior) are still intrinsically disordered and are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. This is Catholic teaching today. Yet, MU promotes the LGBTQ community and their behavior while remaining indifferent to Catholic teaching.
Homosexual acts does not refer to behavior. It means sexual intercourse. There is no sin in being homosexual, acting homosexual, or behaving homosexually.
The church still does state that engaging in homosexual intercourse is a sin. That is actually quite weakly supported by biblical texts.
-
Summary Judgment motion hearing scheduled for 2/2/2017
Trial date set for June 19, 2017
https://wcca.wicourts.gov/courtRecordEvents.do;jsessionid=88FC7B5CB5F09ADEE1209F82A3BF4555.render6?caseNo=2016CV003396&countyNo=40&cacheId=3E6496F5C5BAB4F71BB03E1FCB331833&recordCount=11&offset=0&linkOnlyToForm=false&sortDirection=DESC
-
Yes, treat the person with respect; but homosexual acts (behavior) are still intrinsically disordered and are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. This is Catholic teaching today. Yet, MU promotes the LGBTQ community and their behavior while remaining indifferent to Catholic teaching.
What exactly is this natural law you speak of? Do other homosexual animals know they're breaking it? What about the animals that change gender when need be?
-
What exactly is this natural law you speak of? Do other homosexual animals know they're breaking it? What about the animals that change gender when need be?
i'm thinking, but i cannot speak for warrior, that the natural law he is alluding to is the one that "goes forth and multiplies" last time i read about the alternative life styles, they haven't quite figured out a way to do this; not for a lack of trying though-ayn'er? ;D
which animals are "homosexual" and "change gender"? you do realize the difference however between animals and humans, right? something about a soul...?
-
which animals are "homosexual" and "change gender"?
Here you go:
http://bfy.tw/4yJR
http://bfy.tw/6ezz
-
The traditional Catholic "natural law" is based on medieval understandings of science. Thomas Aquinas was a genius philosopher but it is silly to impose his worldview, informed by 13th century science, on 21st century moral questions.
I am a churchgoing Catholic but this teaching holds literally zero water with me.
-
Here you go:
http://bfy.tw/4yJR
http://bfy.tw/6ezz
If there was a compliment 10X better than "super awesomely well done", it still wouldn't give this enough credit.
-
Here you go:
http://bfy.tw/4yJR
http://bfy.tw/6ezz
You gotta lot of free time ai'na?
-
You gotta lot of free time ai'na?
Took me 45 seconds, start to finish.
Bonus cut!
https://www.youtube.com/v/xPTXVqETBM4
-
Took me 45 seconds, start to finish.
Bonus cut!
https://www.youtube.com/v/xPTXVqETBM4
made it 1:31 until the background singers echoed "squirming in her beak".
-
What exactly is this natural law you speak of? Do other homosexual animals know they're breaking it? What about the animals that change gender when need be?
So that's what they were keeping in that barn along I-94 in Racine County.
-
If there was a compliment 10X better than "super awesomely well done", it still wouldn't give this enough credit.
it was good..., but "come on man"!! you that easily excited Eyn'a?
-
i'm thinking, but i cannot speak for warrior, that the natural law he is alluding to is the one that "goes forth and multiplies" last time i read about the alternative life styles, they haven't quite figured out a way to do this; not for a lack of trying though-ayn'er? ;D
which animals are "homosexual" and "change gender"? you do realize the difference however between animals and humans, right? something about a soul...?
Shout out to warriorchick and Coleman for saying everything I was going to.
-
i'm thinking, but i cannot speak for warrior, that the natural law he is alluding to is the one that "goes forth and multiplies" last time i read about the alternative life styles, they haven't quite figured out a way to do this; not for a lack of trying though-ayn'er? ;D
Why do you believe that the only purpose behind sex is "multiplying?"
-
It can be about other types of math, like geometry and physics.
-
it was good..., but "come on man"!! you that easily excited Eyn'a?
I do get excitable on a Friday night at 9....but even more so when i see someone get sleighed on both a functional and intellectual level in less than 20 words.
-
Newest member of the WI Supreme Court will be Dan Kelly.
Very similar to Rebecca Bradley in judicial philosophy and much more conservative than the man he's replacing, David Prosser.